Ex Parte Stanlake

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 22, 2018

13402667 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 22, 2018)

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.
13/402,667 02/22/2012 Matthew Stanlake S2180-708219(SPL-0231) 2712
79680 7590 01/24/2018
LANDO & ANASTASI, LLP
A2000
One Main Street, Suite 1100
Cambridge, MA 02142
EXAMINER
SATANOVSKY, ALEXANDER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2857
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/24/2018 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 @ L ALaw .com
CKent@LALaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MATTHEW STANLAKE
Appeal 2017-005261
Application 13/402,667
Technology Center 2800
Before TERRY J. OWENS, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and
BRIAN D. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.
OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1—17, 19 and 20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Invention
The Appellant claims a multi-phase electrical distribution system load
imbalance detection method and computer program product. Claim 1 is
illustrative:
1. A method for detecting a load imbalance in a
multi-phase electrical distribution system with a plurality of
circuits and a panel having multiple spaces, the method
comprising:
Appeal 2017-005261
Application 13/402,667
determining an association between each of the spaces of
the panel and a respective one of the circuits;
receiving data of an electrical parameter indicative of load
imbalance;
receiving data of a system parameter indicative of load
activity, wherein the electrical parameter includes per-phase current
or per-phase power, or a combination thereof, and wherein the
system parameter includes CPU operations or disk activity, or a
combination thereof;
determining an average value from the electrical
parameter data;
determining an aggregate value from the system
parameter data;
determining a model correlating the system parameter
with the electrical parameter based, at least in part, on the
associations between the spaces of the panel and the circuits, the
electrical parameter data, and the system parameter data;
determining if the average value of the electrical parameter is
unbalanced;
if the average value of the electrical parameter is unbalanced,
determining a modeled electrical parameter value using the model
and the aggregate value of the system parameter;
determining if the average value of the electrical parameter
corresponds with the modeled electrical parameter value;
if the average value of the electrical parameter does not
correspond with the modeled electrical parameter, outputting
an indication that the load imbalance exists; and adjusting the
system based on the imbalance.
The Rejection
Claims 1—17, 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
failing to claim patent-eligible subject matter.
OPINION
We affirm the rejection.
The Appellant argues the claims as a group (App. Br. 7—11). The
Appellant addresses claims 2—17, 19 and 20 under a separate heading but
2
Appeal 2017-005261
Application 13/402,667
does not provide a substantive argument as to the separate patentability of
those claims (App. Br. 10—11). We therefore limit our discussion to one
claim, i.e., claim 1. Claims 2—17, 19 and 20 stand or fall with that claim.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012).
“Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine,
manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement
thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and
requirements of this title.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court stated in
Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 601 (2010) that “[t]he Court’s precedents
provide three specific exceptions to § 101 ’s broad patent-eligibility
principles: Taws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas.’
[Diamond v.] Chakrabarty, [447 U.S. 303,] 309, 100 S. Ct. 2204 [(1980)].”
Determining whether a claimed invention is patent-eligible subject matter
requires determining whether the claim is directed toward a patent-ineligible
concept and, if so, determining whether the claim’s elements, considered
both individually and as an ordered combination, transform the nature of the
claim into a patent-eligible application. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int 7,
134 S. Ct. 2347, 2350 (2014).
The Appellant’s Specification states (1 59):
The prior art discloses apparatuses that can detect instantaneous
phase unbalance situations and automatically switch phases
between loads to restore balance in current draw between
phases. These apparatuses do not, however, incorporate the
phase imbalance detection method that is described in this
disclosure. Moreover, an automated switching scheme may be
“undesirable” in some data center applications because these
schemes can increase the risk that one or more servers may be
inadvertently “knocked offline” during switching. Aspects of
this disclosure, in contrast, focus on detection and notification
3
Appeal 2017-005261
Application 13/402,667
so that personnel can evaluate the imbalance and adjust phase
balance in a more controlled fashion.
The Appellant’s claimed method encompasses the abstract idea of
comparing an average value of unbalanced per-phase current and/or
per-phase power with a model correlating per-phase current and/or per-phase
power with aggregate central processing unit (CPU) operations and/or disk
activity, and if the average value of unbalanced per-phase current and/or
per-phase power does not correspond with the modeled per-phase current
and/or per-phase power, outputting an indication that a load imbalance exists
and adjusting the system based on the load imbalance. The method is
limited to multi-phase electrical distribution system load imbalance
detection, but ‘“the prohibition against patenting abstract ideas cannot be
circumvented by attempting to limit the use of [the idea] to a particular
technological environment.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Bilski, 561
U.S. at 610 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Parker v. Flook, 437
U.S. 584, 596 (1978) (“‘[I]f 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.”) (quoting In re
Rickman, 563 F.2d 1026, 1030 (C.C.P.A. 1977)). The receipt of per-phase
current and/or per-phase power and aggregate CPU operations and/or disk
activity does not transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible
application because it is mere gathering of the data input to the comparison
algorithm. See CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366,
1370 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[M]ere ‘[data-gathering] step[s] cannot make an
otherwise nonstatutory claim statutory.’”) (quoting In re Grams, 888 F.2d
835, 840 (Fed. Cir. 1989); see also OIP Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com,
4
Appeal 2017-005261
Application 13/402,667
Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“These processes are well-
understood, routine, conventional data-gathering activities that do not make
the claims patent eligible.”). Outputting an indication that a load imbalance
exists and adjusting the system based on the load imbalance does not
transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application because it
is insignificant post-imbalance-detection activity. See Diamond v. Diehr,
450 U.S. 175, 191-92 (1981) (“[Ijnsignificant post-solution activity will not
transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process.”); Mayo
Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., 566 U.S. 66, 82 (2012)
(“[SJimply appending conventional steps, specified at a high level of
generality, to laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas cannot
make those laws, phenomena, and ideas patentable.”); Bilski, 561 U.S. at
610 ("Flook rejected ‘[t]he notion that post-solution activity, no matter how
conventional or obvious in itself, can transform an unpatentable principle
into a patentable process.”) (quoting Flook, 437 U.S. at 591).
The Appellant argues that the claimed method does “not merely recite
a desired solution or outcome, but rather a specific detailed method of
achieving the desired outcome. The claims are thus not directed to an
abstract idea” (Reply Br. 4).
As indicated above, the Appellant’s claim 1 does not recite any detail
that causes it to claim more than an abstract idea.
The Appellant argues that claim 1 ’s method increases the effective
system capacity, reduces nuisance breaker trips, improves data center power
management by allowing a technician or operator to analyze the system and
make necessary changes to bring the system back into alignment, allows
data center administrators to accurately balance loads across all three phases
5
Appeal 2017-005261
Application 13/402,667
in their data centers, and provides for personnel to evaluate an imbalance
and adjust phase balance in a more controlled fashion and that, therefore, the
claim is patent eligible (Reply Br. 4).
The Appellant’s claim 1 does not require effective system capacity
increase, nuisance breaker trip reduction, data center power management
improvement, system analysis or alignment by a technician or operator,
accurate load balancing across all three phases by data center administrators,
or imbalance evaluation and more controlled phase imbalance adjustment by
personnel. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (“[Appellant's
arguments fail from the outset because . . . they are not based on limitations
appearing in the claims.”).
The Appellant asserts that claim 1 does not preempt load imbalance
detection methods that are not encompassed by that claim and, therefore,
does not preempt use of an abstract idea (Reply Br. 6).
Regardless of whether load imbalance can be detected by methods
that do not require the Appellant’s claim 1 ’s abstract idea, that claim
preempts use of an abstract idea and, therefore, is patent ineligible.
For the above reasons we are not persuaded of reversible error in the
rejection.
DECISION/ORDER
The rejection of claims 1—17, 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
failing to claim patent-eligible subject matter is affirmed.
It is ordered that the Examiner’s decision is 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).
AFFIRMED
6