Ex Parte Blaser

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 25, 2011

10682750 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 25, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ROBERT A. BLASER
____________

Appeal 2009-008458
Application 10/682,750
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, and
JOHN A. JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judges.

DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
A Patent Examiner rejected claims 3, 7, 12, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 29, 31,
and 33-55. The Appellant appeals therefrom under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

Appeal 2009-008458
Application 10/682,750

2
A. INVENTION
The invention at issue on appeal generally relates to diagnostic
systems for telemetered systems. The present invention more particularly
relates to diagnostic systems using commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS)
diagnostic engines. The invention more particularly relates to a model based
diagnostic interface between the telemetered system and the COTS
diagnostic engines. (Spec. 1).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 33, which further illustrates the invention, follows.
33. A method for evaluating one or more failures of a system
having system information representing relationships within
said system and system data representing the status of said
system, the method comprising the steps of:
modeling a hierarchical system to include a model
nomenclature representation of the system information, model
information and nomenclature, system failure mode information
and nomenclature, and telemetry information and nomenclature,
using the system data;
mapping the system information, the model information
and nomenclature, the system failure mode information 1 and
nomenclature, and the telemetry information and nomenclature
into a binding function, using the model nomenclature
representation;
binding the system information, the model information
and nomenclature, the system failure mode information and
nomenclature, and the telemetry information and nomenclature
using the binding function, thereby generating a bound system;

1 We leave it to the Examiner to determine if there is express or implied
support for "system failure mode information and nomenclature" since we
find no express recitation of this limitation in the Specification and
Appellant has not expressly identified any support for it in the Summary of
the Claimed Invention. (App. Br. 2).
Appeal 2009-008458
Application 10/682,750

3
generating an optimized model-based diagnostic interface
for runtime execution, using the bound system;
determining one or more system failures, using the bound
system and the optimized model-based diagnostic interface; and
determining a root cause of one or more of the systems
failures, using the bound system and the optimized model-based
diagnostic interface.

C. REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following references as evidence:
Wang US 5,566,092 Oct. 15, 1996
Pellegrino US 2002/0161820 A1 Oct. 31, 2002
Cush WO 2003/044668 A1 May 30, 2003

D. REJECTIONS
Claims 3, 7, 12, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 29, 31, and 33-55 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Wang in
view of Pellegrino, further in view of Cush.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
"In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears the
initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness." In re
Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citing In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992)).
The question of obviousness is "based on underlying factual
determinations including . . . what th[e] prior art teaches explicitly and
inherently . . . ." In re Zurko, 258 F.3d 1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
Appeal 2009-008458
Application 10/682,750

4
(citations omitted). "The Patent Office has the initial duty of supplying the
factual basis for its rejection. It may not . . . resort to speculation, unfounded
assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in its factual
basis." In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967).

ANALYSIS

Appellant contends that:

Applicant notes that the Final Office does not point to
any passage or Figure in the prior art referencing any binding
functions whatsoever, let alone the use of such a binding
function in a step of mapping the system information, the model
information and nomenclature, the system failure mode
information and nomenclature, and the telemetry information
and nomenclature into such a binding function using a model
nomenclature representation, nor the step of binding the system
information, the model information and nomenclature, the
system failure mode information and nomenclature, and the
telemetry information and nomenclature using the binding
function, as is recited in Applicant's Claim 33.
Applicant further asserts that the step of generating an
optimized model-based diagnostic interface for runtime
execution using a bound system of the type provided in
Applicant's Claim 33 is not taught, disclosed or suggested in
Wang as asserted in the Final Office Action.

(App. Br. 7). We agree with Appellant. Appellant further contends that the
"Examiner falls short of analyzing these features [in the modeling of a
hierarchical system to include a model step] in their totality". (Reply Br. 2).
Again, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner's showing of obviousness
is too brief and lacks sufficient evidential support. The Examiner provides
no substance in the statement of the rejection of how to apply the references
Appeal 2009-008458
Application 10/682,750

5
to support the Examiner's finding of obviousness. To find obviousness
based upon the Examiner's showing would require assumptions or hindsight
reconstruction to supply deficiencies in the Examiner's factual basis
underlying the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness. Therefore, we cannot
sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 33 and its respective
dependent claims based upon the Examiner's lack of a showing of
obviousness. Independent claims 20 and 26 contain corresponding
limitations to independent claim 33 and the Examiner has similarly set forth
an insufficient showing of obviousness of these claims. Therefore, we
cannot sustain the rejection of claims 20 and 26 and their corresponding
dependent claims.

CONCLUSION
For the aforementioned reasons, the Examiner has not shown that the
invention as recited in independent claims 20, 26, and 33 would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art over the combination of Wang,
Pellegrino, and Cush.

VII. ORDER
We reverse the obviousness rejections of claims 3, 7, 12, 20, 22, 24,
26, 28, 29, 31, and 33-55.
REVERSED

tkl