Ex Parte Rassaian et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 28, 2016

12137389 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/137,389 06/1112008
122219 7590 09/30/2016
Miller, Matthias & Hull LLP/ The Boeing Company
One North Franklin, Suite 2350
Chicago, IL 60606
Mostafa Rassaian
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.
03-0502-US-CNT 7435
EXAMINER
RIFKIN, BEN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2122
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/30/2016 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):
bmatthias@millermatthiashull.com
patentadmin@boeing.com
mloye@millermatthiashull.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MOST AF A RASSAIAN,
THOMAS T. ARAKAWA, and JEFFERYS. KNOWLTON
Appeal2015-004450
Application 12/137 ,389 1
Technology Center 2100
Before CATHERINE SHIANG, JOHN D. HAMANN, and JOYCE CRAIG,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 21-27 and 35--40. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants' claimed invention relates to reducing computer simulation
time for finite element analyses, including acoustic response analyses. Spec.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is The Boeing Company.
App. Br. 1.
Appeal2015-004450
Application 12/137,389
if 2. Claim 21 is illustrative of the subject matter of the appeal and is
reproduced below.
21. A method comprising using a computer to:
create a finite element model of a structural response to
an acoustic field, the model including a surface partitioned into
a plurality of subdivisions, and cross-correlation loading terms
for the subdivisions; and
deterministically reduce the cross-correlation loading
terms by eliminating those terms for each subdivision that
exceeds a computed spatial distance from adjacent spatial
subdivisions regardless of modal frequency, where the
computed distance indicates how far apart a subdivision can be
without being influenced by cross-correlation loading of the
adjacent subdivisions.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 21-27 and 35--40 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written
description requirement.
(2) The Examiner rejected claims 21, 27, 35, and 40 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of C.
Stavrinidis et al., Advancements in Vibroacoustic Evaluation of Satellite
Structures, ACTAASTRONAUTICA VOL. 48, NO. 4, pp. 203-210 (2001),
(hereinafter "Stavrinidis") and Bremner et al. (US 6,090, 14 7; issued July 18,
2000) (hereinafter "Bremner").
(3) The Examiner rejected claims 26 and 39 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 (a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Stavrinidis,
Bremner, and Ferdinand W. Grosveld, Plate Acceleration and Sound
Transmission Due to Random Acoustic and Boundary-Layer Excitation,
AIAA JOURNAL VOL. 30 NO. 3, pp. 601---607 (Mar. 1992).
2
Appeal2015-004450
Application 12/137,389
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
contentions that the Examiner erred. In reaching our decision, we consider
all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellants. We address
specific findings and arguments below.
(1) § 112 rejection
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in rejecting independent claims 21
and 35 - claims 22-27 and 36-40 are rejected for being dependent upon
these claims-under§ 112, first paragraph, based on the claim terms
(i) "deterministically reduce the cross-correlation terms" and (ii) "regardless
of modal frequency." App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 2.
As to "deterministically reduce the cross-correlation terms,"
Appellants argue the Examiner incorrectly focuses on the word
"deterministically" rather than the disclosed subject matter. App. Br. 10
(citing MPEP § 2163.02). Appellants argue the Specification discloses
using finite element analysis, which "provides an output [t]hat is fully
determined by the parameter values," for the reduction. See App. Br. 10, 2
(citing Spec. Fig. 2, i-fi-128, 31-34). In other words, "[t]he reduction of cross-
correlation loading terms is not stochastic .... The same set of parameter
values and initial conditions does not lead to an ensemble of different
outputs." Reply Br. 2. Appellants also argue that the Specification's
description of creating a finite element model and later eliminating cross-
correlations is not relevant to the claim language because "[i]t does not
recite that a finite element model reduces cross-correlation terms." Reply
Br. 2 (citing Spec. i1 6).
3
Appeal2015-004450
Application 12/137,389
As to "regardless of modal frequency," Appellants argue the disclosed
finite element analysis "does not eliminate terms based on modal
frequencies," and thus, the Specification discloses the claim limitation. See
App. Br. 10, 2 (citing Spec. Fig. 2, i-fi-128, 31-34).
As to "deterministically reduce the cross-correlation terms," the
Examiner finds although the Specification discloses using finite element
modeling, "this is not how the cross correlation terms are reduced."
Ans. 14 (citing Spec. i1 6). The Examiner finds although "[ f]inite element
modeling is used for modeling the system, the reduction is done by using
data from the input files before the finite element system is run." Id. The
Examiner, thus, finds Appellants' arguments regarding finite element
analysis are irrelevant. Id.
As to "regardless of modal frequency," the Examiner finds the
Specification "at no time discloses modal frequency, or any modal frequency
aspects, nor does it make the distinction that the work is done without these
aspects." Ans. 15. The Examiner further finds "[s]imply because the
[S]pecification does[ not] call it, does[ not] mean that it is[ not] used. After
all, one could not add to the claim that their system operates without power
simply because the [S]pecification does[ not] explicitly disclose its power
requirements." Id. at 15-16.
As to "deterministically reduce the cross-correlation terms," we agree
with Appellants' arguments, and we find one of ordinary skill in the art
would understand that finite element analysis is deterministic and would
reasonably conclude that Appellants had possession of this aspect of the
claimed invention at the time the Specification was filed. See In re Gosteli,
872 F.2d 1008, 1012 (Fed. Cir. 1989); Spec. Fig. 2, i-fi-128, 31-34; see also
4
Appeal2015-004450
Application 12/137,389
Bremner col. 2, 11. 21-23 (drawing a distinction between deterministic
analysis, such as finite element analysis, and statistical analysis).
As to "regardless of modal frequency," Appellants fail to persuasively
shown the Specification disclose that claim limitation. Further, we agree
with the Examiner's reasoning and findings and adopt them as our own. For
example, we agree that simply because the Specification does not call
something out, it does not mean that it is not used. Thus, we find one skilled
in the art would not reasonably conclude that Appellants' had possession of
this aspect of the claimed invention at the time the Specification was filed.
See Gosteli, 872 F.2d at 1012.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejection on
the "regardless of modal frequency" claim term basis.
(2) § 103 rejections
Appellants argue the combination, and Bremner in particular, fails to
teach or suggest "deterministically reduce the cross-correlation loading
terms by eliminating those terms for each subdivision that exceeds a
computed spatial distance from adjacent spatial subdivisions ... , where the
computed distance indicates how far apart a subdivision can be without
being influenced by cross-correlation loading of the adjacent subdivisions,"
as recited in claim 21 and similarly recited in claim 35. Specifically,
Appellants argue Bremner, instead of "ignoring values of those sub regions
which are farther away," teaches, as part of the statistical analysis, "'[e]ach
local admissible function is identified with a single subsystem, so that the
admissible function is everywhere zero except within this subsystem."'
App. Br. 8, 9 (citing Bremner col. 9, 11. 36-40). Appellants further argue
Bremner does not "equate subsystems with distances[, but rather] equates
5
Appeal2015-004450
Application 12/137,389
subsystems with local frequency modes." Id. at 9 (citing Bremner col. 1, 11.
39--43 (arguing Bremner states "that in SEA, a system is modeled as a
collection of subsystems, and each subsystem is assigned a single response
variable corresponding to vibrational energy"); col. 1, 11. 43--46 (arguing
Bremner states "that each subsystem contains a number of resonant modes").
Appellants also argue the Examiner ignores that the computed distance, as
claimed, "indicates how far apart a subdivision can be without being
influenced by cross-correlation loading of the adjacent subdivisions." App.
Br. 9; see also Reply Br. 3--4.
The Examiner finds the combination teaches or suggests the disputed
limitation. See Ans. 10-11, 13. The Examiner finds the disputed limitation
only requires "some distance which separates one region from another."
Ans. 13. As to Bremner, the Examiner finds it teaches "that the local
functions will work in a particular area, and outside that area will be set to
zero." Id. at 10-11 (citing Bremner col. 9, 11. 28--45). The Examiner also
finds Bremner also teaches a CAD program or finite element method having
"a three dimensional design made up of multiple different subsystems," and
thus, will clearly have regions defined by distance. Ans. 12 (citing Bremner
col. 5, 11. 4-29). The Examiner then finds Bremner's teachings teach or
suggest that the calculated distance is the range of the particular subdivision
because there are values in one subdivision, and all the exterior areas are set
to zero. Ans. 10-11; see also id. at 13 (finding because Bremner teaches
(i) that "each subdivision has a distance base (via three dimensional
CAD/Finite element) and external subdivisions are set to zero (A certain
distance outside the subdivision)," the broadest reasonable interpretation of
the claims is met).
6
Appeal2015-004450
Application 12/137,389
We agree with Appellants' arguments that Bremner fails to teach or
suggest the disputed limitation. Specifically, we find the portions of
Bremner cited by the Examiner fail to teach or suggest a "computed distance
indicat[ing] how far apart a subdivision can be without being influenced by
cross-correlation loading of the adjacent subdivisions." See Bremner col. 5,
11. 4--29 (teaching merely that a three-dimensional design of the structural-
acoustic system is created using CAD or finite element methods); col. 9, 11.
36-39 (teaching merely assuming each local admissible function is
identified with a single subsystem to that it is zero elsewhere). We also find
that Bremner' s teaching of setting certain subdivisions to zero relates to a
statistical process, rather than deterministic. Bremner col. 9, 11. 4---65.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's§ 103 rejection of
claims 21and35. Furthermore, we also do not sustain the Examiner's§ 103
rejection of claims 26, 27, 39, and 40, which depend from these claims.
DECISION
( 1) We affirm the Examiner's § 112, first paragraph, rejection of
claims 21-27 and 35--40.
(2) We reverse the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejections of claims 21, 26,
27, 35, 39, and 40.
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
7