Ex Parte Davis et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 15, 2017

13475233 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 2017)

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.
13/475,233 05/18/2012 William H. Davis RTN-821PUS/11-2326-US-NP 3125
33164 7590 12/19/2017
RAYTHEON COMPANY
C/O DALY, CROWLEY, MOFFORD & DURKEE, LLP
354A TURNPIKE STREET
SUITE 301A
CANTON, MA 02021
EXAMINER
BRAINARD, TIMOTHY A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3648
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/19/2017 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):
docketing@dc-m.com
amk@dc-m.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WILLIAM H. DAVIS, JOHN H. VANPATTEN,
ANTHONY T. McDOWELL, and LEE A. McMILLAN1
Appeal 2016-008256
Application 13/475,233
Technology Center 3600
Before DANIEL S. SONG, JAMES P. CALVE, and
FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Office Action
rejecting claims 1, 2, 4—7, 9, and 25—28 as being directed to patent ineligible
subject matter under the judicial exception to 35 U.S.C. § 101. Br. 2, 4;
Non-Final Act. 2-4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Raytheon Company is identified as the real party in interest. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-008256
Application 13/475,233
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 6, and 25 are independent. Representative claim 1 is
reproduced below.
1. A machine-implemented method for predicting jamming
effectiveness, comprising:
receiving input information specifying a threat receiver platform
model describing a threat receiver;
receiving input information specifying a threat transmitter platform
model describing a threat transmitter;
receiving input information specifying a jamming transmitter
platform model describing a jamming transmitter;
receiving input information specifying a first channel propagation
model for a channel between the threat transmitter and the threat
receiver;
receiving input specifying a second channel propagation model for
a channel between the jamming transmitter and the threat receiver;
receiving input information specifying a number of threat
transmitter locations;
performing a first series of interference analyses corresponding to
the number of threat transmitter locations using the threat receiver
platform model, the threat transmitter platform model, the jamming
transmitter platform model, the first channel propagation model, and
the second channel propagation model, each of the first series of
interference analyses resulting in a receiver performance metric value,
wherein the first series of interference analyses hold the location of
the jamming transmitter and the threat receiver constant;
performing a second series of interference analyses corresponding
to the number of threat transmitter locations using the threat receiver
platform model, the threat transmitter platform model, and the first
channel propagation model with no jamming, each of the second
series of interference analyses resulting in a receiver performance
metric value, wherein the second series of interference analyses hold
the location of the jamming transmitter and the threat receiver
constant; and
comparing results from the first and second series of interference
analyses to determine jammer effectiveness, wherein comparing
results from the first and second series of interference analyses to
2
Appeal 2016-008256
Application 13/475,233
determine jammer effectiveness includes determining a maximum
communication range with jamming using results of the first series of
interference analyses, determining a maximum communication range
without jamming using results of the second series of interference
analyses, and calculating a ratio between the maximum
communication range with jamming and the maximum
communication range without jamming.
Br. 14—15 (Claims Appendix).
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue method claims 1,2, 4—7, 9 as a group and system
claims 25—28 as another group. Br. 5—12. We select claims 1 and 25 as
representative claims, with claims 2, 4—7, 9 standing or falling with claim 1
and claims 26—28 standing or falling with claim 25.
The Examiner finds that claim 1 is directed to a series of mathematical
operations or formulas that amount to an abstract idea without significantly
more. Non-Final Act. 2—3, 4—5; Ans. 2. The Examiner finds that the claims
only require information rather than devices to be deployed in a particular
manner and the effectiveness of the jamming system is a mathematical
relationship programmed into the computer and is based on the information
input into the computer. Non-Final Act. 5; Ans. 3^4.
Appellants argue that the claims do not recite a series of mathematical
operations and only the comparing and calculating steps of claim 1 recite a
mathematical operation. Br. 7—8. Appellants also argue that claim 1 recites
steps that are coupled to the physical components of a radio frequency (RF)
transmit or receive system by requiring information that is related to RF
receivers and transmitters. Id. at 8. Appellants further assert that the claims
are improvements to design and manufacturing of such systems. Id. at 9.
3
Appeal 2016-008256
Application 13/475,233
To determine patent-eligibility, we perform a two-step analysis. First,
we determine if the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept like an
abstract idea. Alice Corp. v. CLSBankInt’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014).
If so, we determine whether the claims contain an “inventive concept” that
transforms the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. Id. at 2357.
Alice Step One: Are the Claims Directed to an Abstract Idea
We agree with the Examiner that the claims are directed to a set of
mathematical relationships or formulas that are an abstract idea. See Parker
v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 595 (1978) (noting that ‘“if a claim is directed
essentially to a method of calculating, using a mathematical formula, even if
the solution is for a specific purpose, the claimed method is nonstatutory.”’).
Claim 1 is directed to simulating jamming effectiveness using threat
receiver and transmitter platform models, a jamming transmitter platform
model, and first and second channel propagation models to perform a first
series interference analysis and a second series interference analysis with no
jamming and then comparing the results of the analyses to determine jammer
effectiveness. Appellants describe the subject matter as tools and techniques
for predicting the effectiveness of jamming in real world scenarios. Spec.
26, 38. The platform models predict the operation of jammers and threat
transmitters and receivers {id.), and are generated using models and data sets
generated by other model applications 54, 56, 58, 60, 62, 64. Id. ff 42, 49.
Propagation models characterize propagation channels between a jamming
transmitter and threat receiver and between a threat transmitter and receiver
using algorithms. Id. H 26, 38, 48, Figs. 11, 14, 15, 19. The interference
analyses use equations and models to calculate jamming effectiveness, and
the results are compared to no jamming. Id. H 26, 38-47, 58; Ans. 2.
4
Appeal 2016-008256
Application 13/475,233
In this regard, Appellants incorporate by reference the interference
analysis models and formulas disclosed in Patent No. US 8,086,187 B1 (“the
’ 187 patent”), which lists three of the four inventors of this application.
Mathematical equations for calculating interference estimates by modeling
communications systems appear at columns 2—7 of the ’187 patent.
Claim 1 does not recite physical components of an RF transmit or
receive system, as Appellants allege. See Br. 8. Rather, the claims recite
platform models of receivers and transmitters, and steps of receiving input
information specifying such models. Ans. 3. Claims 1 and 6 are not tightly
coupled to the physical components of an RF system, as alleged. Br. 8.
Claim 25 recites memories that store models and a Communications
System Engineering Tool (COMSET) that receives input information for the
models to perform interference analyses. Br. 10—11. The memories perform
conventional functions, and the COMSET is described in the ’ 187 patent
(Spec. 139) as using mathematical formulas to model jamming operations.
Because the claims predict jamming using math models that simulate
communication systems, the claims essentially recite mental processes.
CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1374 (Fed. Cir.
2011) (“[A] “method that can be performed by human thought alone is
merely an abstract idea and is not patent-eligible under § 101.”); Bancorp
Services, L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266,
1277 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“a machine, system, medium, or the like may in some
cases be equivalent to an abstract mental process for purposes of patent
ineligibility”); Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353—
54 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (collecting information and analyzing it using algorithms
or steps people use in their minds are essentially mental processes).
5
Appeal 2016-008256
Application 13/475,233
Alice Step Two: Do the Claims Contain an “Inventive Concent”
Appellants’ arguments that claims 1 and 6 provide improvements to
the field of RF engineering, and design, and manufacture of RF jamming
transmitters (Br. 9—10) are not commensurate with the scope of the claims
and therefore are not persuasive. The claims are not directed to steps of
manufacturing or designing RF transmitters. They are directed to jamming
effectiveness determinations using mathematical models of platforms and
propagations to simulate jamming. This is an abstract idea for the reasons
discussed above in Alice Step One. Indeed, the claims do not recite RF
components or systems, or even models of RF systems. See Ans. 4.
Nor do we view the claims as being rooted in computer technology or
in any improvements thereto. Here, “[t]he specification fails to provide any
technical details for the tangible components, but instead predominately
describes the system and methods in purely functional terms.” In re TLI
Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 612 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
The claims also do not recite any improvement to RF communications
systems. The claims determine the effectiveness of jamming by comparing
the simulated jamming of a jamming transmitter to a no jamming situation.
The Specification describes generic computer components such as digital
processors 12, memory 14, and user interface 16 that perform conventional
functions of information input and calculations. See Spec. ]Hf 28-49. By
Appellants’ logic, any simulation of a physical system may improve design
and manufacturing of that system by reducing the number of prototypes. See
Br. 9; Spec. 12. Moreover, any alleged improvement that may be disclosed
in the Specification is missing from the claims. See Two-Way Media Ltd. v.
Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1338—39 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
6
Appeal 2016-008256
Application 13/475,233
Here, the claims merely input models of jammers and target systems
and run interference analyses simulations to determine the effectiveness of a
particular jammer platform model against a particular threat transmitter and
receiver platform model, as compared to no jamming. This process is the
essence of an abstract idea or mental process that a skilled artisan would go
through to determine the effectiveness of a jammer versus particular threat
transmitters and receivers. The mathematical formulas and models are used
to simulate communications systems components, which is an abstract idea.
See Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343, 1348-49 (Fed. Cir.
2017). Any improvement to jamming systems and methods (or even to
jamming simulations) is not reflected in the claims, whether the claims are
considered individually or as an ordered combination. Instead, the claims
recite inputting information for models and performing analyses at a high
level of generality that is an abstract idea. See Two-Way Media, 874 F.3d at
1338—39 (claims do not recite innovative system architecture); cf. SiRF
Tech., Inc. v. Inti Trade Comm’n, 601 F.3d 1319, 1332—33 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
(method of computing the position of a GPS receiver could not be performed
without a GPS receiver, versus the situation where the calculations can be
performed in the human mind and machines do not play a meaningful role).
Claim 25 is not rooted in computer technology as alleged. Br. 11. It
uses conventional computer functions to input data and perform calculations
as an obvious way to achieve a solution more quickly. Versata Dev. Grp. v.
SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Bancorp Servs., 687
F.3d at 1279 (using a computer to accelerate an ineligible mental process
does not make that process patent-eligible); SiRF, 601 F.3d at 1333 (same).
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4—7, 9, and 25—28.
7
Appeal 2016-008256
Application 13/475,233
DECISION
We affirm the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4—7, 9, and 25—28.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
8