Ex Parte PETROV

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 18, 2019

15176351 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 18, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
15/176,351 06/08/2016
52349 7590 03/20/2019
WENDEROTH, LIND & PONACK L.L.P.
1030 15th Street, N.W.
Suite 400 East
Washington, DC 20005-1503
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Mihail PETROV
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
2016-0721 3971
EXAMINER
MERANT, GUERRIER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2111
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/20/2019 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):
eoa@wenderoth.com
kmiller@wenderoth.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MIHAIL PETROV
Appeal2018-003684
Application 15/176,351 1
Technology Center 2100
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, CARLL. SILVERMAN, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1--4, which are all the claims pending in this application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is the Applicant,
Panasonic Corporation. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-003684
Application 15/17 6,351
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant's application relates to a bit interleaver for a bit-interleaved
coding and modulation system with quasi-cyclic low density parity-check
codes. Spec. ,r 1. Claim 1 illustrates the appealed subject matter and reads
as follows:
1. A transmitting method performed by a bit interleaver for
transmitting a transmission signal generated from bits of a
codeword, the codeword being generated by using a repeat-
accumulate quasi-cyclic low-density parity check coding
scheme, the bit interleaver including a non-transitory memory
storing information indicating a permutation rule and circuitry
that reorders parity portions of the codeword by parity
interleaving performed in accordance with the information
indicating the permutation rule, the bit interleaving method
compnsmg:
a cyclic block permutation step of applying, using the bit
interleaver, a cyclic block permutation process to a codeword
made up of N cyclic blocks each consisting of Q bits, to reorder
the cyclic blocks in accordance with a cyclic block permutation
rule defining a reordering of the cyclic blocks;
a bit permutation step of applying, using the bit
interleaver, a bit permutation process to the codeword after the
cyclic block permutation process, to reorder the bits of the
codeword in accordance with a bit permutation rule defining a
reordering of the bits;
a dividing step of dividing, using the bit interleaver, the
codeword after the bit permutation process into a plurality of
constellation words, each of the constellation words being made
up ofM bits;
a modulating step of mapping, using the bit interleaver,
each constellation word to a modulated signal; and
2
Appeal2018-003684
Application 15/17 6,351
a transmitting step of transmitting, using the bit
interleaver, the transmission signal including the modulated
signal, wherein
N is not a multiple of M,
the bit permutation rule defines the reordering of the bits
of the codeword after the cyclic block permutation process, such
that the Q bits in each of N'= N-X cyclic blocks of the N cyclic
blocks are each allocated to a bit of an identical bit index in Q
constellation words and the Q constellation words are each made
up of one bit in each of M cyclic blocks and such that one or
more of the N cyclic blocks are excluded and interleaving is
performed only to cyclic blocks remaining, the M cyclic blocks
being common to the Q constellation words, where X is a
remainder ofN divided by M, and
a bit index of the bit in each of the Q constellation words
to which the bits in each of the N'=N-X cyclic blocks are each
allocated is determined in accordance with the cyclic block
permutation rule.
The Examiner's Rejection
Claims 1-4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to
patent-ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 2-3.
ANALYSIS
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a "new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter." 35 U.S.C. § 101.
However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include
implicit exceptions: "[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract
ideas" are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Banklnt'l, 573 U.S. 208,
216 (2014).
3
Appeal2018-003684
Application 15/17 6,351
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we
are guided by the Supreme Court's two-step framework, described in Mayo
and Alice. Id. at 217-18 ( citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus
Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75-77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework,
we first determine what concept the claim is "directed to." See Alice, 573
U.S. at 219 ("On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of
intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement
risk."); see also Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) ("Claims 1 and 4
in petitioners' application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting
against risk .... ").
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible,
include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental
economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219-20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611);
mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594--95 (1978)); and
mental processes (Gottschalkv. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69 (1972)). Concepts
determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes,
such as "molding rubber products" (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192
( 1981) ); "tanning, dyeing, making waterproof cloth, vulcanizing India
rubber, smelting ores" (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S.
252, 267---68 (1854))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69
(citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the
Supreme Court held that "[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise
statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a
mathematical formula." Diehr, 450 U.S. at 187; see also id. at 191 ("We
view respondents' claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber
4
Appeal2018-003684
Application 15/17 6,351
products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula."). Having
said that, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim "seeking patent
protection for that formula in the abstract ... is not accorded the protection
of our patent laws, and this principle cannot be circumvented by attempting
to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment."
Id. (internal citation omitted) ( citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187
("It is now commonplace that an application of a law of nature or
mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving
of patent protection.").
If the claim is "directed to" an abstract idea, we tum to the second
step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where "we must examine the
elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an "'inventive
concept"' sufficient to 'transform' the claimed abstract idea into a patent-
eligible application." Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 ( citation omitted). "A claim
that recites an abstract idea must include 'additional features' to ensure 'that
the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the
[abstract idea]."' Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77).
"[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[] fail[ s] to transform
that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Id.
The PTO recently published revised guidance on the application of
§ 101. 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) ("Revised Guidance"). Under that guidance, we first
look to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract
ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing
5
Appeal2018-003684
Application 15/17 6,351
human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental
processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a}-(c), (e}-(h)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that
exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that are not
"well-understood, routine, conventional" in the field (see MPEP
§ 2106.05(d)); or
( 4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities
previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of
generality, to the judicial exception.
See Revised Guidance.
Revised Guidance Step 1
Step 1 of the Revised Guidance asks whether the claimed subject
matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter
identified by 35 U.S.C. § 101: process, machine, manufacture, or
composition of matter. Claim 1 recites a "transmitting method." Appellants
do not argue the Examiner erred in concluding claim 1 falls within the four
statutory categories of patentable subject matter. We agree with the
Examiner's conclusion because claim 1 falls within the process category.
Revised Guidance Step 2A, Prong 1
Under Step 2A, Prong 1 of the Revised Guidance, we determine
whether the claims recite any judicial exceptions, including certain
groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of
6
Appeal2018-003684
Application 15/17 6,351
organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or
mental processes). See Revised Guidance.
Claim 1 recites the following limitations, among others: (1) "a
codeword made up ofN cyclic blocks each consisting of Q bits," (2) "a
cyclic block permutation rule defining a reordering of the cyclic blocks," (3)
"a dividing step of dividing ... the codeword after the bit permutation
process into a plurality of constellation words, each of the constellation
words made up of M bits," (4) "wherein N is not a multiple of M," and (5)
"such that the Q bits in each ofN'=N-X cyclic blocks of the N cyclic blocks
are each allocated to a bit of an identical bit index in Q constellation words."
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation,
recite an algorithm for converting a data structure into another data structure
because each of the limitations defines a procedure for converting the data in
an initial data structure to a new data structure according to a set of defined
rules, or an algoirthm. For example, "a codeword made up ofN cyclic
blocks each consisting of Q bits," as recited in limitation (1) defines a
codeword that is operated upon by the algorithm. "A cyclic block
permutation rule defining a reordering of the cyclic blocks" and "a dividing
step of dividing ... the codeword after the bit permutation process into a
plurality of constellation words, each of the constellation words made up of
M bits" as recited in limitations (2) and (3) define operations performed by
the algorithm to reorder the data in the data structure. "Wherein N is not a
multiple of M," and "such that the Q bits in each ofN'=N-X cyclic blocks of
the N cyclic blocks are each allocated to a bit of an identical bit index in Q
constellation words" as recited in limitations ( 4) and ( 5) define properties of
the data structures before and after the algorithm is performed. The recited
7
Appeal2018-003684
Application 15/17 6,351
algorithm involves mathematical concepts including mathematical
relationships (e.g., "wherein N is not a multiple ofM" and mathematical
formulas ( e.g., "dividing ... the codeword after the bit permutation process
into a plurality of constellation words" and "such that the Q bits in each of
N'=N-X cyclic blocks of the N cyclic blocks are each allocated to a bit of an
identical bit index in Q constellation words." The claims are similar to the
"series of mathematical calculations based on selected information" in SAP
America and the concept of hedging that can be reduced to a mathematical
formula in Bilski. Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010); SAP
America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Accordingly, we conclude the claims recite mathematical relationships and
mathematical formulas, which are mathematical concepts identified in the
Revised Guidance and, thus, an abstract idea.
Revised Guidance Step 2A, Prong 2
Under the Step 2A, Prong 2 of the Revised Guidance, we next
determine whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the
judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a}-(c),
(e }-(h)).
The Examiner finds the claimed algorithm is not recited as an
improvement or an enhancement to any hardware or system. Id. The
Examiner further finds any nonconventional and non-generic arrangement of
the claimed codewords are related solely to the algorithm itself. Id.
Appellant argues the claims improve the relevant technology, namely,
bit-interleaved coding and modulation used in transmission/reception
systems for digital communications. App. Br. 10. In particular, Appellant
argues the claims recite the use of cyclic block permutation and bit
8
Appeal2018-003684
Application 15/17 6,351
permutation rules "for interleaving bits of a codeword generated by using a
repeat-accumulate quasi-cyclic low-density parity check coding scheme,
which enables more efficient interleaving to be applied to codewords of
quasi-cyclic low-density parity-check codes and improves bit-interleaved
coding and modulation used in transmission/reception systems for digital
communications." Id. at 9-10 (citing Spec. ,i,i 9-11, 49-55).
Appellant has persuaded us of Examiner error. We agree with
Appellant that the claims improve the relevant technology, namely, bit-
interleaved coding and modulation used in transmission/reception systems
for digital communications. We, therefore, conclude the claims integrate the
judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(a). We
are guided by our reviewing court's decision in McRO, where the court held
that claims that recite rules allowing automation of animation tasks that
could only be performed manually were not directed to an abstract idea
because the claims improved animation technology. See McRO, Inc. v.
Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1313-14 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Like McRO, the claims here improve an existing technology and are,
therefore, not directed to an abstract idea.
For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 1 as directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. We also
do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 2, 3, and 4, which recite
commensurate subject matter.
DECISION
We reverse the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1--4.
REVERSED
9