Ex Parte Morford

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 3, 2017

13530187 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 3, 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.
13/530,187 06/22/2012 Stephen A. Morford PA002756-U; 67097-1396
PU
1137
54549 7590 10/05/2017
TART SON OASKFY fr OT DS/PR ATT fr WHTTNFY
EXAMINER
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
FOUNTAIN, JASON A
Birmingham, MI 48009 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/05/2017 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):
ptodocket @ cgolaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEPHEN A. MORFORD
Appeal 2017-000784
Application 13/530,187
Technology Center 3700
Before WILLIAM A. CAPP, MICHAEL L. WOODS, and
FREDERICK. C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
Opinion for the Board filed by WOODS, Administrative Patent Judge.
Opinion Concurring-in-Part filed by CAPP, Administrative Patent Judge.
WOODS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Stephen A. Morford (“Appellant”)1 appeals from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1—6, 8—11, and 13—20. Appeal Br. 12. We have
jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 The real party in interest is United Technologies Corporation. Appeal
Br. 1.
Appeal 2017-000784
Application 13/530,187
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention relates to controlling the operation of a flow
stability enhancement device of a turbomachine, which may be used for
propelling an aircraft. See, e.g., Spec. Tflf 1, 29. Claims 1 and 13 are
independent and are reproduced below, with emphases added to particular
limitations discussed in this Decision.
1. A method of controlling a flow enhancement device,
comprising:
providing a flow enhancement device that is configured
stabilize a flow of air near a nacelle, the flow enhancement
device having a first setting and a second setting that provides
more stabilization than the first setting;
monitoring parameters of a turbomachine to determine the
stability of the flow of air near the nacelle;
using the parameters to establish an inlet stability and
distortion parameter that quantifies the distortion of the flow of
air, and
adjusting the flow enhancement device between the first
setting and the second setting based on the inlet stability and
distortion parameter.
13. A turbomachine control arrangement, comprising:
a nacelle of a turbomachine;
a flow enhancement device configured to selectively
influence a flow of air near the nacelle; and
a controller configured to adjust an amount of influence
provided by the flow enhancement device in response to an inlet
stability and distortion parameter that quantifies a distortion of
a flow of air based on monitored parameters of the
turbomachine.
Appeal Br. 13, 14 (Claims App.).
2
Appeal 2017-000784
Application 13/530,187
THE REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1—6, 8—11, and 13—20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the
written description requirement. Final Act. 6.
II. Claims 1—6, 8—11, and 13—20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, for lacking enablement. Id.
at 7.
III. Claims 13—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite. Id. at 11.
IV. Claims 1—6, 8—11, and 13—20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 101 for being directed to an abstract idea without
reciting significantly more than abstract idea. Id. at 11.
V. Claims 13—15 and 17—19 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Winter et al. (U.S. Patent
Publication No. US 2008/0112799 Al, published May 15, 2008
(hereinafter “Winter”)). Id. at 12.
VI. Claims 13 and 16—19 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Haas (U.S. Patent No. US
8,192,147 B2, issued June 5, 2012. Id.
VII. Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Winter in view of Loda et al. (U.S. Patent
No 7,246,003 B2, issued July 17, 2007 (hereinafter “Loda”)).
Id. at 14.
VIII. Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Haas in view of Loda. Id. at 15.
3
Appeal 2017-000784
Application 13/530,187
ANALYSIS
I. Rejection I: Written Description
The claimed limitations at issue under this rejection are:
(1) Claim 1 - using . . . parameters to establish an inlet stability
and distortion parameter that quantifies the distortion of the
flow of air; and adjusting [a] flow enhancement device
between [a] first setting and [a] second setting based on the
inlet stability and distortion parameter.
(2) Claim 13 - a controller configured to adjust an amount of
influence provided by the flow enhancement device in
response to an inlet stability and distortion parameter that
quantifies a distortion of a flow of air based on monitored
parameters.
Appeal Br. 13, 14 (Claims App.).
In rejecting claims 1—6, 8—11, and 13—20 for failing to comply with
the written description requirement, the Examiner asserts that the “Applicant
does not set forth how they go from parameters to establishing the inlet
stability and distortion parameters to control the flow enhancement device.”
Final Act. 6 (citing Spec. 137). The Examiner finds that there is “no
disclosure on the relationship between the parameters and the inlet stability
and distortion parameter.” Id. (citing Spec. Tflf 47, 48).
In contending the rejection, Appellant argues that both the
Specification and the original claims provide explicit support for the claimed
features, including “inlet stability” and “distortion parameter.” Appeal Br. 4
(citing in relevant part Spec. 137, originally filed claims 8, 13).
Appellant’s argument is persuasive.
A description adequate to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
must “clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [the
inventor] invented what is claimed.” Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
4
Appeal 2017-000784
Application 13/530,187
598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (enbanc) (alteration in original)
(quoting Vas—Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
“[T]he test for sufficiency is whether the disclosure of the application relied
upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had
possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Id. “If. . .
the specification contains a description of the claimed invention, albeit not in
ipsis verbis (in the identical words), then the examiner . . ., in order to meet
the burden of proof, must provide reasons why one of ordinary skill in the
art would not consider the description sufficient.” In re Alton, 76 F.3d 1168,
1175 (Fed. Cir. 1996). We find that the Specification complies with the
written description requirement.
In the present case, the Specification describes the use of a flow
stability enhancement device to stabilize and smooth uneven air pressure
distributions within the air flow of a nacelle. Spec. H 4, 31, Figs. 1,2. To
illustrate an embodiment of Appellant’s flow stability enhancement device,
we reproduce Figure 1 of the Specification, below:
■/ 10
18'
2AJ
5
Appeal 2017-000784
Application 13/530,187
According to the Specification, Figure 1 depicts turbomachine 10 that
includes nacelle 14, mounted adjacent fan section 18, and flow enhancement
device 24, which comprises an arrangement of apertures established in
nacelle 14. Spec. 29, 31, 32. To help stabilize uneven air distribution,
the Specification explains that flow enhancement device 24 may either blow
air into or evacuate air from the nacelle. See id. 132 (describing device 24
as, for example, a blower or suction device). To illustrate how the claimed
flow enhancement device may be controlled, we reproduce Figure 3 of the
Specification, below:
The Specification describes Figure 3 as depicting a method for
controlling the claimed flow enhancement device. Id. 127. In particular,
the Specification describes program 52 as receiving engine parameters 56,
such as corrected rotational speed (NIC) and engine pressure ration (EPR).
Id. at 35. The Specification further describes that program 52 may receive
aircraft parameters 60, as well, including angle of attack (a), yaw (P), and
Mach number (Mn). Id. at 137. Based on these inputs, at step 68,
6
Appeal 2017-000784
Application 13/530,187
program 52 determines whether flow enhancement device should be
activated or deactivated. Id.
We also reproduce Figure 4 of the Specification, below:
FIG.4
The Specification describes Figure 4 as depicting performance
chart 76 that shows performance curve 80 at a given angle of attack, yaw,
and Mach number, and that the enhancement device is activated when
curve 80 exceeds a certain threshold value of inlet distortion (vertical axis),
denoted by 84. Spec. 148.
Although the Specification does not disclose a particular mathematical
formula that equates the angle of attack, yaw, Mach number, corrected
engine rotational speed, and engine pressure ratio to calculate inlet distortion
for mapping performance curve 80, we are not persuaded that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would not have been able to determine inlet
distortion and produce a performance curve based on the described aircraft
and engine parameters. Rather, we find that inlet distortion is a term that a
person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood as describing
7
Appeal 2017-000784
Application 13/530,187
flow nonuniformity, such as within a nacelle, and one that can be quantified
without undue experimentation. See, e.g., I. Ariga, N. Kasai, S. Masuda, Y.
Watanabe, I. Watanabe, The Effect of Inlet Distortion on the Performance
Characteristics of a Centrifugal Compressor, ASME PROCEEDINGS 82-
GT-92, 2 (1982), http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org (last
visited Sept. 29, 2017) (describing “inlet distortion” as being generally
known as flow nonuniformity generated at an impeller inlet and providing a
detailed analysis thereof); see also Spec. 112 (“using the parameters to
establish an inlet stability and distortion parameter that quantifies the
distortion of the flow of air”).
As explained above, in order for the Examiner to meet the burden of
proof, the Examiner must provide reasons why one of ordinary skill in the
art would not consider the description sufficient. See Alton, 76 F.3d at 1175.
Here, the Examiner has not persuaded us that one of ordinary skill in the art
would not have considered the above description sufficient in determining
inlet stability and distortion.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—
6, 8—11, and 13—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for lack of
adequate written description.
II. Rejection II: Enablement
In rejecting claims 1—6, 8—11, and 13—20 for lacking enablement, and
as similarly set-forth above under Rejection I, the Examiner asserts that the
“Applicant does not set forth how they go from parameters to establishing
the inlet stability and distortion parameters to control the flow [of]
enhancement device.” Final Act. 7.
8
Appeal 2017-000784
Application 13/530,187
In contending the rejection, Appellant argues that the Examiner failed
to analyze and consider each of the Wands factors, and the Examiner failed
to determine whether undue or unreasonable experimentation is required to
practice the invention. See Appeal Br. 5—6; see also In re Wands, 858 F.2d
731, 736-37 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“Wands”).
Although there is no requirement that the Examiner discuss each of
the Wands ’ factors, Appellant’s argument is persuasive. In re Hillis, 484
Fed.Appx. 491, 495 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“As the MPEP states, ‘it is not
necessary to discuss each [Wands] factor in the . . . enablement rejection.’”)
(citing MPEP §2164.04).
The Examiner bears the initial burden of establishing a reasonable
basis for questioning the enablement provided for the claimed invention. In
re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1562 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Here, the Examiner has
failed to meet this burden, as the Examiner has not explained why a skilled
artisan would have been unable to practice the claimed invention without
undue experimentation. See AK Steel Corp. v. Sollac, 344 F.3d 1234, 1244
(Fed. Cir. 2003) (“The enablement requirement is satisfied when one skilled
in the art, after reading the specification, could practice the claimed
invention without undue experimentation.”)
As discussed above, we are not persuaded that a person of ordinary
skill in the art would not have been able to determine inlet distortion and
produce a performance curve (Spec. Fig. 4) based on the described aircraft
and engine parameters and without undue experimentation. Instead, we find
that inlet distortion is a term that a person having ordinary skill in the art
would have understood as describing flow nonuniformity, such as within a
nacelle, and one that can be quantified without undue experimentation.
9
Appeal 2017-000784
Application 13/530,187
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—
6, 8—11, and 13—20, under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for lack of
enablement.
III. Rejection III: Indefinite
The Examiner rejects claims 13—20 as being indefinite. Final Act 11.
The claimed limitation at issue is “a controller configured to adjust an
amount of influence provided by the flow enhancement device in response to
an inlet stability and distortion parameter that quantifies a distortion of a
flow of air based on monitored parameters of the turbomachine.” Appeal
Br. 14 (Claims App.).
In rejecting the claims, the Examiner concludes that the claimed
limitation is a means-plus-function limitation, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 112,
sixth paragraph, and finds that “there is no structure given in the
specification as to interpret the ‘configured to’ language.” Final Act. 12; see
also id. at 9—10 (explaining that the claimed limitation “a controller
configured” invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, and that there “is no
description in the specification” for this limitation.).
In contesting the rejection, Appellant argues that the claimed
“controller configured to” is not a means-plus-function limitation as the
claim recites the necessary structure. Appeal Br. 7—8.
Appellant’s argument is persuasive.
There exists a rebuttable presumption that claim terms lacking the
word “means” do not invoke § 112, | 6. See Advanced Ground Info Sys. V.
Life360, Inc., 830 F.3d 1341, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Federal Circuit has
held that rebutting this presumption requires demonstrating “by a
10
Appeal 2017-000784
Application 13/530,187
preponderance of the evidence that the claims are to be governed by § 112,
1 6.” Id.
In the present case, claim 13 does not use the word “means,” but
instead recites, “a controller configured to.” Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.).
We are not persuaded that a preponderance of the evidence supports the
Examiner’s determination that the claimed limitation invokes 35 U.S.C.
§ 112,16. See Life360, 830 F.3d at 1347. Here, the claimed term
“controller” is coupled with a description of the controller’s operation,
namely, that the controller is “configured to adjust an amount of influence
provided by the flow enhancement device in response to an inlet stability
and distortion parameter that quantifies a distortion of a flow of air based on
monitored parameters of the turbomachine.” Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.);
see also Linear Tech. Corp. v. Impala Linear Corp., 379 F.3d 1311, 1320
(Fed. Cir. 2004) (“when the structure-connoting term ‘circuit’ is coupled
with a description of the circuit's operation, sufficient structural meaning
generally will be conveyed to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and § 112
1 6 presumptively will not apply.”).
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 13—
20, under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite.
IV. Rejection IV: Ineligible Subject Matter
The relevant claimed limitations are:
(1) Claim 1 - adjusting the flow enhancement device
between the first setting and the second setting based
on the inlet stability and distortion parameter; and
(2) Claim 13 - a controller configured to adjust an amount
of influence provided by the flow enhancement device
in response to an inlet stability and distortion parameter
11
Appeal 2017-000784
Application 13/530,187
that quantifies a distortion of a flow of air based on
monitored parameters of the turbomachine.
Appeal Br. 13, 14 (Claims App.).
Upon reviewing the claimed language and the Specification, and as
discussed above in connection with Rejections I and II, we determine that
the claimed invention relates to adjusting a flow enhancement device based
on an inlet distortion, which is determined, for example, based on an
aircraft’s monitored parameters, including angle of attack, crosswind
velocity, and Mach number (Spec. 148), and an engine machine’s (e.g.,
turbomachine’s) parameters, including engine pressure ratio and corrected
rotational speed {id. 135). See also id. at Figs. 3, 4.
The Examiner rejects claims 1—6, 8—11, and 13—20 as being directed
to ineligible subject matter, namely, an abstract idea. See Final Act. 11. In
support of this rejection, the Examiner explains that the claims “are directed
to establishing an inlet stability and distortion parameter which is a computer
program, which is just mathematical formulas which are an abstract idea”
and that the claims “do not include additional elements that are sufficient to
amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.” Id. (emphasis
added).
In contesting the rejection, Appellant argues that the Examiner
identifies no case law to support a finding that the claimed “inlet stability
and distortion parameter” is directed to an abstract idea. Appeal Br. 9.
Appellant further argues that the Examiner’s “assertion that the claims are
directed toward an abstract idea is thus unsupported and improperly
conclusory.” Id.
Appellant’s argument is persuasive.
12
Appeal 2017-000784
Application 13/530,187
As an initial matter, we determine that the claims are not merely
directed to “mathematical formulas which are an abstract idea,” as the
Examiner determines. See Final Act. 11. Rather, as discussed above, we
determine that the claims instead relate to adjusting a flow enhancement
device based on inlet distortion.
Moreover, in order to reject a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the
USPTO provides the following Examiner guidance:
When the examiner has determined the claim recites an
abstract idea, the rejection should identify the abstract idea as it
is recited (i.e., set forth or described) in the claim, and explain
why it corresponds to a concept that the courts have identified
as an abstract idea.
USPTO, Memo Titled: FORMULATING A SUBJECT MATTER
ELIGIBILITY REJECTION AND EVALUATING THE APPLICANT’S
RESPONSE TO A SUBJECT MATTER ELE1G1B1L1TY REJECTION,
(May 4, 2016), https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ieg-
may-2016-memo.pdf (last visited September 29, 2017) (emphasis added).
Here, the Examiner cites to no case law and provides inadequate explanation
to support its determination that the claims are “abstract.” See Final
Act. 11—12; see also Ans. 14—15.
Furthermore, the USPTO publishes a non-limiting list of abstract
ideas, which we reproduce (without the case citations), below:
(1) Mitigating settlement risk;
(2) Hedging;
(3) Creating a contractual relationship;
(4) Using advertising as an exchange or currency;
(5) Processing information through a clearinghouse;
(6) Comparing new and stored information and using rules to
identify options;
13
Appeal 2017-000784
Application 13/530,187
(7) Using categories to organize, store and transmit
information;
(8) Organizing information through mathematical
correlations;
(9) Managing a game of bingo;
(10) The Arrhenius equation for calculating the cure time of
rubber;
(11) A formula for updating alarm limits;
(12) A mathematical formula relating to standing wave
phenomena; and
(13) A mathematical procedure for converting one form of
numerical representation to another.
2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, 79 Fed.
Reg. 74618 (Dec. 16, 2014). Although the USPTO’s list is non-exhaustive,
we find nothing in the list that supports the Examiner’s finding that the
claims before us—which relate to adjusting a flow enhancement device
based on inlet distortion—are abstract.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded that the subject
matter of claims 1, 4, 5, 9-11, and 21—28 are abstract. Thus, the Examiner
did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence claims 1—6, 8—11,
and 13—20 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
V. Rejection V: Anticipated by Winter
The issue before us is the meaning of the limitation “a controller
configured to adjust an amount of influence provided by the flow
enhancement device.”
In rejecting claims 13—15 and 17—19 as anticipated by Winter, the
Examiner determines that the claimed limitation, “a controller configured to
adjust an amount of influence provided by the flow enhancement device” is
disclosed by Winter because Winter’s controller is “capable of being
14
Appeal 2017-000784
Application 13/530,187
configured to adjust the influence so the structure meets the limitation.”
Final Act. 12 (emphasis added).
In contesting the rejection, Appellant argues that the Examiner errs in
interpreting the claimed limitation as being met by Winter’s “controller”
simply because it may be “capable o/being configured to.” See Appeal
Br. 10-11 (emphasis added).
Appellant’s argument is persuasive.
Although the Examiner interprets “configured to” to mean “capable
of’ (Final Act. 12), we find that the ordinary and customary meaning of this
phrase, in light of the Appellant’s Specification, supports a narrower
interpretation. In particular, we interpret the claimed limitation to require
the controller to be designed to “adjust an amount of influence provided by
the flow enhancement device in response to an inlet stability and distortion
parameter that quantifies a distortion of a flow of air based on monitored
parameters of the turbomachine.” See Typhoon Touch Technologies, Inc. v.
Dell, Inc., 659 F.3d 1376, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (construing “memory . . .
configured to” as “memory that must perform the recited function”); Boston
Scientific Corp. v. Cordis Corp., 2006 WL 3782840 (N.D. CA. 2006) (“A
widely accepted dictionary definition of the word ‘configure’ means ‘[t]o
design, arrange, set up, or shape with a view to specific applications or uses.’
American Heritage Dictionary 386 (4th ed. 2000).”).
This interpretation is also supported by the Specification, which
describes, for example, a controller that adjusts a valve to control the flow of
compressed air from a compressed air supply to the flow enhancement
device. Spec. 133. The Specification further describes that an aircraft’s
monitored parameters (e.g., angle of attack, crosswind velocity, and Mach
15
Appeal 2017-000784
Application 13/530,187
number (id. 148)) and an engine machine’s parameters (e.g., engine
pressure ratio and corrected rotational speed (id. 135)) are used for enabling
the processor to establish inlet stability and distortion (id. 137), which is
then used to adjust the flow enhancement device (id. 139). See also id. at
Figs. 3, 4.
Applying this interpretation to the claims, we are not persuaded that
Winter’s “controller is configured to adjust an amount of influence provided
by the flow enhancement device.” Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 13—15 and 17—19, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b),
as anticipated by Winter.
VI. Rejection VI: Anticipated by Haas
In rejecting claims 13 and 16—19 as anticipated by Haas, the Examiner
relies on the same unreasonably broad interpretation of “a controller
configured to” discussed above in connection with Rejection V. See Final
Act. 13 (finding that Haas’s “controller is provided and it is capable of being
configured to adjust the influence” (emphasis added)).
For the same reasons that we do not sustain Rejection V, we do not
sustain Rejection VI. In particular, we are not persuaded that Haas’s
“controller is configured to adjust an amount of influence provided by the
flow enhancement device,” as required by claim 13. Accordingly, we
reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 13 and 16—19, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b), as anticipated by Haas.
16
Appeal 2017-000784
Application 13/530,187
VII. Rejections VII and VIII: Obvious Over Winter and Loda
and Haas and Loda
In rejecting claim 20 as unpatentable over Winter and Loda and Haas
and Loda, the Examiner relies upon the same unreasonably broad
interpretation of the claimed “controller configured to,” as discussed above
in connection with Rejections V and VI. See Final Act. 14—15.
For the same reasons that we do not sustain Rejections V and VI, we
do not sustain Rejections VII and VIII. Accordingly, we reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Winter and Foda and Haas and Foda.
SUMMARY
We reverse the rejection of claims 1—6, 8—11, and 13—20 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written
description requirement.
We reverse the rejection of claims 1—6, 8—11, and 13—20 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, for lacking enablement.
We reverse the rejection of claims 13—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite.
We reverse the rejection of claims 1—6, 8—11, and 13—20 under 35
U.S.C. § 101.
We reverse the rejection of claims 13—15 and 17—19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Winter.
We reverse the rejection of claims 13 and 16—19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Haas.
We reverse the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Winter in view of Foda.
17
Appeal 2017-000784
Application 13/530,187
We reverse the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Haas in view of Loda.
REVERSED
18
Appeal 2017-000784
Application 13/530,187
OPINION CONCURRING-IN-PART
CAPP, Administrative Patent Judge
I join the majority with respect to the art rejections and the
section 112 rejections.
I concur in the decision to reverse the Section 101 rejection.
However, I write separately because, in my opinion, at least claim 1 is
directed to an abstract idea, namely, the collection and analysis of data, i.e.,
airflow parameters. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830
F.3d 1350, 1353-54 (2016); see also Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Inti, 134 S.Ct.
2347 (2014) (abstract idea also encompasses issuing instructions based on
collection and analysis of data).
I would have proceeded to step 2 under the Alice analysis and found
that the claims are directed to an inventive concept, namely, an improved
method of controlling airflow through an engine nacelle. In my opinion, the
Examiner’s finding that the claims are simply directed to appending well
understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the
industry is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
19