Ex Parte Holle

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 4, 2017

12357128 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 4, 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.
12/357,128 01/21/2009 Michael R. Holle 08-1013-US-NP 1089
63759 7590 01/06/2017
DTTKFW YFF
EXAMINER
YEE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. BOSWELL, BETH V
P.O. BOX 802333
DALLAS, TX 75380 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/06/2017 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):
ptonotifs @yeeiplaw.com
mgamez @ yeeiplaw. com
patentadmin @ boeing. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL R. HOLLE
Appeal 2015-002519
Application 12/357,128
Technology Center 3600
Before HUBERT C. LORIN, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and
BRADLEY B. BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1—20 which are all the claims pending in the application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2015-002519
Application 12/357,128
THE INVENTION
The Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to generating three
dimensional maintenance planning processes (Spec., para. 1). Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A method for generating maintenance plans, the method
comprising:
[1] responsive to receiving a request to generate a maintenance plan
for a structure, obtaining information from a number of databases, the
number of databases including a three dimensional simulation
database comprising a number of three dimensional simulations of
tasks and events related to maintenance, the three dimensional
simulations of tasks including removal of a component and
installation of a component;
[2] determining on a processor a maintenance need for the structure
using the information obtained from the number of databases;
[3] determining on the processor a number of tasks required to meet
the maintenance need using the information obtained from the number
of databases;
[4] identifying a three dimensional task simulation for at least one task
in the number of tasks required to meet the maintenance need using
the information obtained from the number of databases to form a
number of three dimensional task simulations, the three dimensional
task simulation providing a three dimensional view of a component of
the structure;
[5] analyzing a time for at least one individual task;
[6] sequencing the number of three dimensional task simulations in a
maintenance plan that maximizes efficiency; and
[7] compiling on a processor the number of three dimensional task
simulations for the number of tasks required into a sequence of three
dimensional task simulations to form the maintenance plan.
2
Appeal 2015-002519
Application 12/357,128
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the
rejections:
Aragones et al. US 6,067,486 May 23, 2000
Saunders US 6,572,376 B1 June 3, 2003
Quintus et al. US 2004/0122723 Al June 24, 2004
Keller et al. US 2004/0225390 Al Nov. 11,2004
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to
non-statutory subject matter.1
2. Claims 1—8 and 10-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Quintus and Keller.
3. Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Quintus, Keller, and Aragones.
FINDINGS OF FACT
We have determined that the findings of fact in the Analysis section
below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence.2
1 This rejection was designated as a New Grounds of Rejection in the
Answer (Ans. 13). Also, dependent claim 22 was included in the heading
of the rejection but claim 22 was not entered by the Examiner (see Advisory
Action mailed July 2, 2014).
2 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
(explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the
Patent Office).
3
Appeal 2015-002519
Application 12/357,128
ANALYSIS
35U.S.C.§ 101
The Examiner has rejected claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Ans.
13—16). In contrast, the Appellants have argued that this rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 101 is improper (App. Br. 5, 6, Reply Br. 2-4).
Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, an invention is patent-eligible if it claims a
“new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.”
35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court, however, has long interpreted § 101
to include an implicit exception: “laws of nature, natural phenomena, and
abstract ideas” are not patentable. See, e.g., Alice Corp. Pty Ltd. v. CLS
Banklnt’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014).
In judging whether claim 1 falls within the excluded category of
abstract ideas, we are guided in our analysis by the Supreme Court’s two-
step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 2355 (citing Mayo
Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1296—97
(2012)). In accordance with that framework, we first determine whether the
claim is “directed to” a patent-ineligible abstract idea. If so, we then
consider the elements of the claim both individually and as “an ordered
combination” to determine assess whether the additional elements
“transform the nature of the claim” into a patent-eligible application of the
abstract idea. Id. This is a search for an “inventive concept” an element or
combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to
“significantly more” than the abstract idea itself. Id. The Court also stated
that “the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-
ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id. at 2358.
4
Appeal 2015-002519
Application 12/357,128
Here, we find that the claim is directed to the concept of sequencing a
process in a maintenance plan. In this case, the process of sequencing is
directed to sequencing simulations of a maintenance process and is a method
of organizing human activities and an abstract idea beyond the scope of
§101.
We next consider whether additional elements transform the nature of
the claim into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea, e.g., whether
the claim does more than simply instruct the practitioner to implement the
abstract idea using generic computer components. We conclude that it does
not. Considering each of the claim elements in turn, the function performed
by the processor and databases at each step of the process is purely
conventional. Each step of the claimed method does no more than require a
generic processor and databases to perform generic computer functions.
For these reasons the rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claim is
sustained. Independent claim 11 is directed to an “apparatus” that includes a
generic “display,” “storage device,” and “processor unit” that implement the
same concept as claim 1. Independent claim 15 is directed to a generic
“computer program product” comprising “program code for” implementing
the same concept as claim 1. Accordingly, the rejection of independent
claims 11 and 15, and their corresponding dependent claims is sustained for
the same reasons.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
The Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 1 is improper because
“Keller is not analogous art.” (App. Br. 11—12; see also Reply Br. 4—6).
According to the Appellant, Keller relates to product assembly and “does not
5
Appeal 2015-002519
Application 12/357,128
relate to ‘generating maintenance plans’ at least because product assembly
and maintenance of a product are distinct fields of endeavor” (id. ). The
Appellant also contends that “Keller is not reasonably pertinent to the
problem faced” because “assembling a product and tracking completion of
assembly steps is not reasonably pertinent” to limitations [1] and [6] (id.).
In contrast, the Examiner has determined that it would have been
obvious “to modify Quintus with Keller because one of ordinary skill in the
art would have recognized that applying the known 3D simulation technique
of Keller would have yielded predictable result and resulted in an improved
system” that would generate visual impact to express detailed maintenance
procedures (Final Act. 9; see also Ans. 5). According to the Examiner, “the
level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied
shows the ability to incorporate such 3D transformation technology to
known sequence of work steps” (id.).
We agree with the Examiner. “[I]f a technique has been used to
improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize
that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is
obvious unless its application is actual application is beyond his or her skill”
KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Quintus has
disclosed software for scheduling maintenance tasks in a maintenance plan
having all of the elements of claim 1 except for the “three-dimensional
simulation” aspects of limitations [1], [4], and [7]. Keller has disclosed
software for generating three-dimensional simulations of tasks. Keller’s
disclosure is limited to simulations of product assembly tasks, but one of
ordinary skill in the art would have readily seen that the three-dimensional
simulations of Keller would have improved other software where
6
Appeal 2015-002519
Application 12/357,128
visualization is desirable regardless of whether the task at hand is a product
assembly task or a maintenance task. The modification of the maintenance
scheduling software of Quintus to include three-dimensional simulations as
taught by Keller is considered a predictable combination of familiar
elements for their intended function. The reasoning articulated by the
Examiner for combining the elements of Quintus and Keller to have
maintenance planning software with three-dimensional simulation of tasks
has a rational underpinning and the claimed subject matter is considered
obvious.
The Appellant argues that the prior art does not disclose the claim 1
limitation “three dimensional simulations of tasks and events related to
maintenance” because “Keller does not disclose that its assembly steps are
related to maintenance” (App. Br. 12—13; see also Reply Br. 6—7). The
Appellant also argues that the prior art does not disclose limitation [4]
(“identifying . . .”) because “Quintus does not disclose, e.g., simulation
model 125b is a three dimensional simulation of a task for a maintenance
need” (Reply Br. 8) and “Keller does not disclose identifying an assembly
step animation required to meet a maintenance need.” (App. Br. 14).
We do not find these arguments persuasive. Appellant’s arguments
attack the references individually, while the rejections at issue are over a
combination of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA
1981) (“one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references
individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of
references”). As we have already explained above, the Examiner relies on
Quintus as disclosing maintenance plans and Keller as disclosing three
dimensional simulation and the rejection is based on what would have been
7
Appeal 2015-002519
Application 12/357,128
obvious to one skilled in the art in view of the references combined (see
Ans. 3—5).
The Appellant argues that the rejection is improper because “Keller
does not disclose that assembling a product requires removing components
from the product” (App. Br. 14; see also Reply Br. 7).
In contrast, the Examiner has found that Quintus discloses landing
gear maintenance based on a corrosion prevention and control program
(CPCP), and that “one of ordinary skill in the art can use the sequence of fig.
8—11 of Keller to represent removal of an old landing gear based on its end
of CPCP” (Ans. 19).
We agree with the Examiner. In KSR the Court stated that when
considering obviousness that “the analysis need not seek out precise
teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for
a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR at 418. Removal of a
component (e.g., corroded landing gear from an aircraft) to facilitate
maintenance is a creative step that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
employ.
The Appellant also argues that “Quintus does not disclose sequencing
three dimensional simulations of the tasks performed for the maintenance
demand to maximize efficiency of the tasks within the maintenance
demand” (App. Br. 15; see also Reply Br. 9).
In contrast, the Examiner has found that “the motive [] to achieve
maximum efficiency based on different task and schedule arrangement is
well demonstrated by Quintus (summary)” (Ans. 22).
8
Appeal 2015-002519
Application 12/357,128
We agree with the Examiner. Quintus discloses maintenance planning
including a “maximum utilization parameter” and we agree that this citation
meets the argued claim limitation under a broadest reasonable interpretation.
For the reasons above we sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Quintus and Keller. The
Appellant has not separately argued the rejection of claims 2—20 and
accordingly we sustain the rejection of claims 2—20 as well.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
We conclude that Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as listed in the Rejections
section above.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—20 are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
9