Ex Parte Civil et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 27, 2018

13207425 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2018)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/207,425 08/11/2011 Aaron D. Civil AUS920110187US1 5962
133311 7590 03/01/2018
Law Office of Marcia L. Doubet, P.L.
P.O. Box 1087
Lake Placid, EL 33862
EXAMINER
ISHIZUKA, YOSHIHISA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2865
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/01/2018 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
mid @ mindspring, com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL
AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AARON D. CIVIL, JEFFREY G. KOMATSU, JOHN M.
WARGO, EMMANUEL YASHCHIN, and PAUL A. ZULPA1
Appeal 2016-005525
Application 13/207,425
Technology Center 2800
Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as International Business
Machines Corporation (“IBM”)
Appeal 2016-005525
Application 13/207,425
Appellants request our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 11, 13, 15, 16, 19, 20, and 24—34. We
have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 11 is illustrative of Appellants’ subject matter on appeal and is
set forth below:
11. A system for detecting emerging trends in process control data,
comprising:
a computer comprising a processor; and
instructions which are executable, using the processor, to
implement functions comprising:
applying a Repeated Weighted Geometric Cumulative Sum analysis
to process control data to determine whether a threshold is exceeded for the
process control data, wherein:
the analysis comprises iteratively computing, for the
process control data in each of (i = 1 to N) intervals until locating a last good
period in the process control data, a weighted cumulative sum that
summarizes all previous evidence in the process control data through
interval i against an assumption that a parameter of an underlying process
represented by the process control data is acceptable, wherein locating the
last good period comprises locating a point in time (T - M) that corresponds
to a peak in the process control data, T representing a current time and the
point (T - M) starting the last good period as a segment of depth M in the
process control data which extends backwards from the current time T and
in which a value computed by multiplying the threshold by a ratio is not
exceeded up through the current time T, the segment M following an earlier
point in time (T - (M0 + 1)) where the value is exceeded, the value
representing growth in the process control data; and
2
Appeal 2016-005525
Application 13/207,425
a tuning a parameter is applied, in each iteration, to the
summarized previous evidence for reducing likelihood of false flagging of
the process control data;
flagging the process control data if the analysis determines that
the threshold is exceeded; and
responsive to the flagging, taking remedial action in a supply
chain to which the process control data applies.
THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 11, 13, 15, 16, 19, 20, 24—34 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § § 112 (pre- AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the
written description requirement.
2. Claims 11, 13, 15, 16, 19, 20, and 24—34 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § §112 (pre-AlA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for
failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter
which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIAthe applicant
regards as the invention.
3. Claims 11, 13, 15-16, 19, 20, 24-34 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial
exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract
idea) without significantly more.
ANALYSIS
Upon consideration of the evidence on this record and each of the
respective positions set forth in the record, we find that the preponderance of
3
Appeal 2016-005525
Application 13/207,425
evidence on this record supports Appellants’ position, and we thus reverse
each rejection, with emphasis as follows.
Rejection 1
The Examiner states that claims 11, 16, and 27 recite “responsive to
the flagging, taking remedial action in a supply chain to which the process
control data applies”. It is the Examiner’s position that this subject matter is
unsupported by the original disclosure. The Examiner states that support is
lacking for the relationship between the flagging and taking remedial action.
Final Act. 3.
Appellants refer to certain paragraphs of the Specification in footnotes
7 and 8 on page 5 of the Appeal Brief in support of the aforementioned
claimed subject matter. Appellants also submit argument on pages 13—19 of
the Appeal Brief, which we do not repeat herein. We agree with Appellants’
stated positon in the record that adequate support can be found for taking
remedial action in response to detection of problems. The detection is the
flagging, and remedial action is taken in response thereto.
In view of the above, we reverse Rejection 1.
Rejection 2
The Examiner’s position for this rejection is set forth on pages 4—5 of
the Final Office Action, which we do not repeat in its entirety herein. For
reasons discussed therein, it is the Examiner’s position that without teaching
a peak value, where the value is exceeded or not exceeded according to
claim 11 is indefinite.
4
Appeal 2016-005525
Application 13/207,425
However, we agree with Appellants that the claim language explicitly
recites that the “point in time (T - M) . . . corresponds to a peak” of claim
11, which provides sufficient clarity to the claim in this regard. Appeal Br.
19—22. Reply Br. 4.
In view of the above, we reverse Rejection 2.
Rejection 3
The Examiner’s stated position for this rejection is set forth on page 5
of the Final Office Action. Therein, the Examiner views the phrase “taking
remedial action in a supply chain to which the process control data applies”
as a mathematical process for the abstract process control data which is
corrected. Final Act. 5. The Examiner believes this term is broad enough
that it can be viewed as part of the abstract idea where the data is further
processed by performing a remedial action. Ans. 4.
Appellants dispute the Examiner’s claim interpretation. Appellants
submit that the phrase “taking remedial action in a supply chain” recites
action to be performed on something physical that is undergoing
manufacturing. Appeal Br. 26. Thus, Appellants submit that claim 11 has
effect in the physical world (i.e., in the manufacturing environment),
outside the computer in which various calculations are being performed, in
order to make decisions about what is happening in the physical world (as
represented by observed process control data) for purposes of then taking
remedial actions in that physical world. Appeal Br. 26.
Paragraph [0014] of Appellants’ Specification describes the
containment or corrective action (remedial action), reproduced below:
5
Appeal 2016-005525
Application 13/207,425
[0014] The present invention is directed to detecting emerging trends
using statistical analysis of observed process control data, and an
embodiment of the present invention enables using trace evidence -
sometimes referred to as forensic evidence - in place of the
statistically-significant samples that are required by known
techniques. The disclosed approach provides early detection of
negative process trends, allowing an enterprise to begin containment
actions before widespread impact on the supply chain occurs, while at
the same time yielding a low rate of false alarms. As a result of this
early problem detection of out-of-control or unfavorable conditions,
personnel and other resources can be quickly directed to containment
and corrective action, which provides savings in time, labor, and
process costs. In particular, as noted earlier, the costs associated
with remediation can be lowered when containment and corrective
action begin before an emerging defect has a significant impact on the
supply chain.
On page 4 of the Reply Brief, Appellants further argue that one
skilled in the art readily understands that exceeding a threshold in a
supply chain environment is not remedied by “further processing” the
data as indicated by the Examiner.
We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument. During examination,
claim terms must be given their broadest reasonable construction consistent
with the Specification. In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374,
1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Paragraph [0014] of the Specification does not
indicate that the phrase “taking remedial action in a supply chain to which
the process control data applies” includes the interpretation made by the
Examiner. As such, we are persuaded of error regarding the Examiner’s
claim interpretation. Because the Examiner’s claim interpretation is flawed,
we are persuaded of error regarding Rejection 3. However, we emphasize
that our reversal of Rejection 3 is because the Examiner failed to consider an
6
Appeal 2016-005525
Application 13/207,425
element of the claim due to flawed claim interpretation; hence, we
procedurally reverse the § 101 rejection without reaching the substantive
merits of patent ineligibility at this time.
DECISION
Each rejection is reversed.
ORDER
REVERSED
7