Fieldbinder, Douglas et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 31, 2019

14263565 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 31, 2019)

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.
14/263,565 04/28/2014 Douglas Fieldbinder 2014P-091-US 2905
114984 7590 12/31/2019
Rockwell Automation - Kunzler Bean & Adamson
1201 South Second Street
E-7F19
Milwaukee, WI 53204
EXAMINER
NGHIEM, MICHAEL P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2862
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/31/2019 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):
docket@kba.law
raintellectualproperty@ra.rockwell.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DOUGLAS FIELDBINDER,
ERIC WAYDICK, and ISSA V. DRAME
Appeal 2019-000987
Application 14/263,565
Technology Center 2800
Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, MICHAEL G. McMANUS, and
MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.
CASHION, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–17 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed
to patent-ineligible subject matter.2 We have jurisdiction under

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Rockwell
Automation Technologies, Inc. Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed June 11,
2018, p. 2.
2 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejections of claims 1–32 under 35
U.S.C. § 112(a) and of claims 18–32 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, leaving the
rejection of claims 1–17 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as the sole rejection
Appeal 2019-000987
Application 14/263,565

2
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER3
The invention relates to calculating line-to-neutral voltage without a
connection to a system neutral or earth ground. Spec. ¶ 1. The Specification
discloses that three-phase power systems can supply power to three-phase
loads, such as motors, where the loads are balanced under normal operating
conditions and do not require a neutral connection. Id. ¶ 2. The Specification
further discloses that a grounding conductor is run with power conductors to
a load for safety reasons. Id. ¶ 3. According to the Specification, “[t]he
safety ground is often nearly the same potential as the neutral, however,
when current flows in the neutral, voltage drop from the load to the neutral
to ground connection, which is usually at a three-phase power source for a
system, can be substantial.” Id. The Specification also discloses that
determining line-to-neutral voltage by simply measuring line-to-ground at a
load voltage between a neutral and a safety ground can be inaccurate,
especially under fault conditions. Id. When it comes to three-phase power
systems that are isolated from a grounded structure (that is, ungrounded
systems that do not have a neutral available), the Specification discloses that
having a line-to-neutral voltage available for loads with no available neutral
connection is desirable for safety reasons. Id. ¶ 4. The invention provides a

remaining against the pending claims. Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) dated
September 19, 2018, p. 3.
3 Our Decision additionally refers to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed April
28, 2014 and the Non-Final Office Action (“Non-Final Act.”) dated
December 26, 2017. Appellant did not file a Reply Brief.

Appeal 2019-000987
Application 14/263,565

3
method, an apparatus, and a computer program product (computer readable
storage medium) for determining a voltage, including measuring three line-
to-line voltages for the phases in a three-phase power system, where each
line-to-line voltage includes a voltage magnitude. Id. ¶ 5.
Claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal
Brief, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter (formatting added):
1. A method for determining voltage, the method
comprising:
measuring three line-to-line voltages for the phases in a three-
phase power system, each line-to-line voltage comprising a voltage
magnitude;
constructing on a two-dimensional coordinate system with an
origin, a phasor triangle comprising the three line-to-line voltages
represented as phasors, wherein a first phasor Vab originates at a first
point and extends in a direction along a horizontal axis of the
coordinate system to the origin, a second phasor Vbc extends between
the origin and a second point, the second point in a direction vertically
and horizontally from the origin, and a third phasor Vca extends
between the second point and the first point, the origin comprising a
first vertex of the phasor triangle, the first point comprising a second
vertex of the phasor triangle and the second point comprising a third
vertex of the phasor triangle;
adding a first line segment that extends from a point that bisects
the second phasor Vbc in a direction perpendicular to the second
phasor Vbc and away from the phasor triangle, the first line segment
terminating at a third point;
adding a second line segment that extends from a point that
bisects the third phasor Vca in a direction perpendicular to the third
phasor Vca and away from the phasor triangle, the second line segment
terminating at a fourth point;
adding a third line segment from the third point to the first
point;
adding a fourth line segment from the fourth point to the origin,
wherein the third line segment intersects the fourth line segment at a
neutral point;
Appeal 2019-000987
Application 14/263,565

4
determining a line-to-neutral voltage, the line-to-neutral voltage
comprising a line from the neutral point to one of the first vertex of
the phasor triangle, the second vertex of the phasor triangle, and the
third vertex of the phasor triangle; and
reporting the line-to-neutral voltage.

OPINION
The Examiner maintains the rejection of claims 1–17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 as directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Non-Final Act. 4–6.
We review the appealed rejection for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv); Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075
(BPAI 2010) (precedential), cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d
1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (explaining that even if the Examiner had failed
to make a prima facie case, “it has long been the Board’s practice to require
an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections”).
After considering the argued claims relative to case law presented in
this Appeal and each of Appellant’s arguments, we are not persuaded that
Appellant identifies reversible error. Thus, we affirm the Examiner’s
rejection for the reasons expressed in the Non-Final Office Action and the
Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis.
Appellant presents arguments for claim 1 and does not present
separate arguments for claims 2–17. Appeal Br. 19. Accordingly, we select
independent claim 1 as representative of the subject matter claimed. In
accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv), dependent claims 2–17 stand or
fall with claim 1.
Appeal 2019-000987
Application 14/263,565

5
The Examiner identifies the abstract idea of a mathematical concept
and a mental process for calculating a line-to-neutral voltage as the judicial
exception recited in claim 1. Non-Final Act. 4–6. The Examiner further finds
that the additional elements/steps of measuring three line-to-line voltages for
the phases in a three-phase power system, each line-to-line voltage
comprising a voltage magnitude and reporting the line-to-neutral voltage do
not add significantly more to this abstract idea because these elements/steps
are, respectively, an insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering
and a post-solution activity. Id. at 6. In addition, the Examiner finds that the
claims implement the abstract idea on a conventional three- phase power
system and computer which does not amount to significantly more than the
abstract idea. Id.
Appellant raises a number of arguments with regard to this rejection
that we address throughout the opinion. Appeal Br. 11–18.

Legal Framework
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 Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208,
216 (2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, our
inquiry focuses on the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in
Mayo and Alice. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (citing Mayo Collaborative
Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75–77 (2012)). In accordance
Appeal 2019-000987
Application 14/263,565

6
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. Kappos, 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 concepts (Flook, 437 U.S. at 594–95); and mental processes
(Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)). Concepts determined to be
patent eligible include physical and chemical processes, such as “molding
rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191 (1981)); “tanning,
dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores”
(id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267–68 (1853)));
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
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
Appeal 2019-000987
Application 14/263,565

7
to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment.” Id.
(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 turn 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 (quotation marks 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. (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 Office recently published revised guidance on the application of
§ 101. USPTO’s January 7, 2019 Memorandum, 2019 Revised Patent
Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“Memorandum”), 84 Fed. Reg. 50.4
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
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)).

4 We recognize that the Memorandum was not available to the Examiner and
Appellant during the prosecution of the instant Application.
Appeal 2019-000987
Application 14/263,565

8
Only if a claim recites a judicial exception and 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 is 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 generally Memorandum.

Analysis
Claims 1–17
Determination of Claims’ Statutory Category
Before any consideration as to whether a claim 1 is directed to a
patent-ineligible subject matter, such as an abstract idea, we must first
determine if the claim falls under a statutory category, a “new and useful
process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101.
There is no dispute between Appellant and the Examiner that claim 1
falls under a statutory category under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See generally Appeal
Br.; see generally Non-Final Act. For completeness, we note that
independent claim 1 is a method claim falling under the statutory category of
a “process.”
Having established that the claim falls in a statutory category, we now
follow the Memorandum to analyze claim 1 to determine if they are directed
to a patent-ineligible subject matter.
Appeal 2019-000987
Application 14/263,565

9
Determination of Patent Subject Matter Eligibility
Applying the guidance set forth in the Memorandum, we conclude
that claims 1–17 do not recite patent-eligible subject matter.
Revised Step 2A, Prong One–Directed to a Judicial Exception
The Memorandum instructs us first to determine whether each claim
recites any judicial exception to patent eligibility. 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. The
Memorandum identifies three judicially-excepted groupings: (1)
mathematical concepts, (2) certain methods of organizing human activity
such as fundamental economic practices, and (3) mental processes. Id. at 52.
The Examiner finds claim 1 recites a mathematical relationship for
calculating a line-to-neutral voltage and a mental process. Non-Final Act. 4–
6.
Claim 1 recites a method for determining a line-to-neutral voltage by
measuring three line-to-line voltages for the phases in a three-phase power
system and using trigonometric functions to construct a phasor triangle
comprising the measured voltages represented as phasors on a two-
dimensional coordinate system with an origin, wherein each phasor
originates from a specific point and extends to the origin in a specific
orientation. The method further adds line segments to determine a neutral
point from which to determine a line-to-neutral voltage. This method recites
the abstract ideas of a mathematical concepts and a mental process, wherein
the measuring step merely provides information used to construct the phasor
triangle that will be used in the determining the calculated values for the
line-to-neutral voltage.
The step of measuring the three line-to-line voltages for a three-phase
power system is recited at a high level of generalization and merely provides
Appeal 2019-000987
Application 14/263,565

10
information to be used in the process. Providing information is a step that
can be performed in the human mind. As such, this measuring step is a
mental step directed to a mental process.
The step of constructing the phasor triangle relies on the measured
line-to-line voltages as phasors for its construction on a two-dimensional
coordinate system that includes the positional arrangement, based on the
dimensional x, y coordinates, of the first, second, and third phasors, first and
second points, and first, second and third vertexes that further defines the
phasor triangle. Spec. ¶¶ 7–11; Application Figures 3–10. The step of
constructing the phasor triangle is also recited at a high level of
generalization and merely involves creation of a geometric platform
(schematic) for subsequent trigonometric functions. See Application Figures
3–10. As illustrated, creation of a geometric platform (schematic) is a step
that can be performed in the human mind. As such, this measuring step is a
mental step directed to a mental process.
In addition, the Specification describes that this step involves
mathematical operations to calculate the coordinates for the first and second
points using equations including the magnitudes of first, second and third
phasors. Spec. ¶¶ 8, 10. Therefore, the step of constructing the phasor
triangle also performs and sets forth a mathematical concept.
The claim further recites a third and fourth points as well as a neutral
point that, like the first and second points, further define the framework of
the phasor triangle and are also directed to a mental processes and
mathematical concepts for the reasons given above. See Spec. ¶ 12.
The various steps of adding first, second, third and fourth line
segments further defines the framework of the phasor triangle to determine
Appeal 2019-000987
Application 14/263,565

11
the line-to-neutral voltage. This step is also recited at a high level of
generalization. Addition of line segments to arrive at a trigonometric
solution is a step that can be performed in the human mind. As such, this
measuring step is a mental step directed to a mental process.
In addition, the Specification describes mathematical operations to
calculate the lengths of the first and second line segments using equations
including the magnitudes of the second and third phasors. Spec. ¶ 9.
Therefore, the steps of adding the first and second line segments also
perform and set forth a mathematical concept.
The step of determining a line-to-neutral voltage relies on adding a
line through the vertexes generated from the earlier steps. The Specification
discloses that the line-to-neutral is determined by obtaining a line-to-neutral
voltage for phasor V for each phase of the three phases which includes
determining a line from the neutral point to the origin, the first point, and the
second point. Spec. ¶ 16. The Specification further discloses that the
magnitude of each phasor is determined according to equations related to a
number of specific two dimensional coordinates. Id. Therefore, this step is
also directed to mental processes and mathematical concepts for the reasons
given above.
The step of reporting the line-to-neutral voltage is recited at a high
level of generalization and merely presents information. Presenting
information is a step that can be performed in the human mind. As such, this
reporting step is a mental step directed to a mental process.
Appeal 2019-000987
Application 14/263,565

12
As the Examiner indicates, Appellant’s method of claim 1 is similar to
Digitech’s5 concept of organizing information through mathematical
correlations, which is recognized as an abstract idea. Non-Final Act. 4–5;
Ans. 6.
In Digitech, the Federal Circuit summarized the latter issue in the
following way:
As noted by the Supreme Court, “an application of a law of
nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process
may well be deserving of patent protection.” Diamond v. Diehr,
450 U.S. 175, 187, 101 S.Ct. 1048, 67 L.Ed.2d 155 (1981). A
claim may be eligible if it includes additional inventive features
such that the claim scope does not solely capture the abstract
idea. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 2347. But a claim
reciting an abstract idea does not become eligible “merely by
adding the words ‘apply it.’” Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life
Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1276
(Fed.Cir.2012).
Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The Federal Circuit further
stated:
Without additional limitations, a process that employs
mathematical algorithms to manipulate existing information to
generate additional information is not patent eligible. “If 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.” Parker v. Flook,
437 U.S. 584, 595, 98 S.Ct. 2522, 57 L.Ed.2d 451 (1978)
(internal quotations omitted).
Id. at 1351.
Accordingly, applying the guidance in the Memorandum, we conclude
that claim 1 recites an abstract idea, i.e., a mental process and a

5 Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344
Appeal 2019-000987
Application 14/263,565

13
mathematical concept, and thus recites a judicial exception for the reasons
the Examiner presents and we give above.
Revised Step 2A, Prong Two – Practical Application6
Having determined that claim 1 recites the abstract concepts of a
mental process and mathematical concept, we next look to determine
whether the claims recite “additional elements that integrate the [judicial]
exception into a practical application.” MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h);
Memorandum, 84 F.3d at 53–54. Integration into a practical application
requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the
claim to “apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that
imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is
more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.”
Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53–54; see also id. at 55 (setting forth
exemplary considerations indicative that an additional element or
combination of elements may have integrated the judicial exception into a
practical application).
Appellant argues that the claimed invention, when viewed as an
ordered combination, provides a specific improvement to the ability to
determine line-to-neutral voltages in an unbalanced three-phase system
where only line-to-line measurements may not be available. Appeal Br. 12
(citing Spec. ¶¶ 2–4). Thus, Appellant contends that the subject matter of
claim 1 does not recite an abstract idea similar to the ideas in Digitech. Id. at

6 We acknowledge that some of these considerations may be properly
evaluated under Step 2 of Alice (Step 2B of Office Memorandum). Solely
for purposes of maintaining consistent treatment within the Office, we
evaluate it under Step 1 of Alice (Step 2A of Office Memorandum). See
generally Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. 50.
Appeal 2019-000987
Application 14/263,565

14
13. According to Appellant, the claimed invention improves voltage
measurement technology by using a trigonometric solution to provide a
quicker method of determining line-to-neutral voltages, which aids in
situations where time is of the essence, such as fault analysis using in circuit
breaker coordination, fault isolation, protective relaying and the like. Id. at
12 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 3, 77). Thus, Appellant contends that, similar to the
claims in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016),
the claimed invention is not merely directed to mathematical equations, but
instead provides a real-world line-to-neutral value that has been tested to
show that the determined line-to-neutral values are very close to actual line-
to-neutral values. Id. at 11, 12 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 95–97, Tables 1–5, Figures
13–14). Appellant also argues that the claimed invention, like the eligible
claims in Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057
(Fed. Cir. 2011) and unlike the claims in Digitech, is not directed merely to
organizing, storing, and transmitting information, but to practical steps to
produce accurate line-to-neutral voltages where a neutral voltage may not be
measurable or measurement of a neutral voltage is not desired. Appeal Br.
13–14. Appellant further points to Klaustech, Inc. v. AdMob, Inc., 2015 WL
10791915 (N.D. Cal. 2015), and McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am.
Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016), in support of the subject matter
eligibility of the claimed invention. Id. at 14–15.
The premise of Appellant’s arguments is that the use of a
trigonometric solution that provides a quicker method of determining line-
to-neutral voltages improves the operation of a computer7 (Appeal Br. 11–12

7 The subject matter of claim 1 does not specifically recite a tool, computer,
or processor. However, the Specification discloses that the invention relies
Appeal 2019-000987
Application 14/263,565

15
(citing Enfish)) and provides practical steps to produce accurate line-to-
neutral voltages where a neutral voltage may not be measurable or
measurement of a neutral voltage is not desired (id. at 13–14 (citing
Classen)).
Appellant’s arguments do not point to reversible error in the
Examiner’s determination that the subject matter of claim 1 is directed to a
judicial exception.
The subject matter of Enfish is directed to “a specific type of data
structure designed to improve the way a computer stores and retrieves data
in memory.” Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1339. The Federal Circuit concluded that
the claims in Enfish were not directed to an abstract idea because “the plain
focus of the claims is on an improvement to computer functionality itself,
not on economic or other tasks for which a computer is used in its ordinary
capacity.” Id. at 1336.
In this case, Appellant directs attention to paragraphs 2–4, 77, and 95–
97 of the Specification to assert a disclosure that claim 1 is directed to an
improvement to computer functionality itself like Enfish. Appeal Br. 12.
According to Appellant, the cited portions of the Specification disclose that
the invention “provide[s] an improvement to the ability in an unbalanced
three-phase system to determine line-to-neutral voltages where only line-to-
line measurements may not be available.” Id. Appellant asserts that a
“trigonometric solution provides a quicker method of determining line-to-
neutral voltages, which aids in situations where time is of the essence, such
as fault analysis using in circuit breaker coordination, fault isolation,

on processors/modules and a computer program product to carry out the
claimed method. Spec. ¶¶ 22–23.
Appeal 2019-000987
Application 14/263,565

16
protective relaying and the like.” Id. However, we agree with the Examiner
that the portions of the Specification relied upon to assert an improvement to
computer functionality do not mention such an improvement. Ans. 6–7. Nor
does Appellant explain how the use of a trigonometric solution improves
computer functionality so as to improve voltage measurement technology.
In Classen, the Court held that, although the analysis step was an
abstract mental process that collected and compared known information,
the immunization step was meaningful in that it integrated the results of the
analysis into a specific and tangible method that resulted in the method
“moving from the abstract scientific principle to [the] specific
application.” MPEP § 2106(e) (citing Classen, 659 F.3d at 1066–68).
While Appellant contends that any collection or comparison of
information made in the claimed invention is not used merely to understand
a principle as in Classen, we agree with the Examiner’s determination that
claim 1 does not set forth a further action that moves the claim into a
specific application of the calculated line-to-neutral voltage. Ans. 7–9. Nor
does Appellant explain how the determination of a line-to-neutral voltage
results in a specific and tangible method that moves from the abstract
scientific principle of a trigonometric solution to the specific application.
Appellant argues that the claim is not directed to human activity, such
as hedging, but to subject matter that produces a line-to-neutral voltage
although certain steps relating to the recited invention may be duplicated on
paper. Appeal Br. 14. We understand this argument as directed to the
Examiner’s determination that the claim is directed to a mental process. See
Non-Final Act. 5–6.
Appeal 2019-000987
Application 14/263,565

17
We find this argument unavailing in view of Appellant’s
acknowledgement that certain claim steps may be duplicated on paper. The
argument does not address the Examiner’s determination that the claim
includes mental processes.
Here, the steps recited in claim 1 employ geometric and trigonometric
mathematical operations but recite these steps with a high level of generality
that, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not
provide additional limitations beyond the abstract idea sufficient to
transform the subject matter into a patent-eligible application. Although
Appellant asserts the method of claim 1 provides an improvement or
advantage for a specific purpose, it appears that claim 1 would essentially
capture the abstract idea it is directed to, which the Supreme Court and
Federal Circuit have cautioned against.
Therefore, after considering Appellant’s arguments and all case laws
relied upon, Appellant has not identified reversible error.
While Appellant asserts an improvement to the functioning of a
computer (Appeal Br. 11–12), independent claim 1 does not recite any
additional elements, such as a computer or processor, nor does Appellant
point to any additional elements in the claim. In addition, the Specification
does not describe the asserted improvement nor does Appellant directs us to
any portion of the Specification that describes the asserted improvement.
Instead, Appellant argues that the claimed invention recites a novel approach
using a trigonometric solution that improves the technology or technical
field of voltage metering over prior art methods that rely on sines and
cosines or the “square root of three,” particularly for unbalanced systems.
Appeal Br. 15 (citing Spec. ¶ 67), 16 (citing Spec. ¶ 77). According to
Appeal 2019-000987
Application 14/263,565

18
Appellant, the claimed invention is computationally simple when compared
to other methods that use sine and cosine functions. Appeal Br. 16.
However, Appellant does not explain how the use of equations that are
computationally simple improves the functionality of a computer such that
the computer is used in other than “its ordinary capacity.” Enfish, 822 F.3d
at 1336.
Therefore, we find that claim 1 does not integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, we conclude, as did the Examiner, that claim 1 recites a
judicial exception, i.e., the abstract ideas of a mental process and a
mathematical concept, and does not integrate this judicial exception into a
practical application.
Step 2 B–Inventive Concept
Because we determine that claim 1 recites an abstract idea and does
not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a
practical application, we look to whether the claim provides an inventive
concept, i.e., adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is
not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field. Memorandum, 84
Fed. Reg. at 56.
As we indicated previously, independent claim 1 does not recite any
additional elements, such as a computer or processor, nor does Appellant
point to any additional elements in the claim. In addition, the Specification
discloses that the method can be practiced using a general purpose computer.
Spec. ¶ 55. Thus, even if a computer or processor would have been recited in
the claim, it would not add a specific limitation beyond the judicial
Appeal 2019-000987
Application 14/263,565

19
exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field,
taken individually or as an ordered combination with the claimed steps.
Appellant asserts that the claimed invention is most similar to the
invention of Diehr because Appellant is not patenting the various
trigonometric equations recited in the claims, but instead seeks to patent a
method of measuring line-to-line voltages and then determining line-to-
neutral voltages in a three-phase power system that may be unbalanced and
does not have a neutral available for measurement. Appeal Br. 16.
This argument lacks persuasive merit.
As we discussed previously, the Supreme Court in Diehr 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.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 176, 187, 191.
We agree with the Examiner that claim 1 preempts any use of the
abstract idea because it is directed to using mathematical equations to
calculate a line-to-neutral voltages and the calculated line-to-neutral voltages
are not used in a tangible application/process as in Diehr. Ans. 13.
Accordingly, the instant claims preempt any use of the abstract idea.
Appellant has not argued adequately otherwise.
Appellant also argues that the claimed invention, like the invention in
Amdocs Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2016), uses a
trigonometric method to derive accurate line-to-neutral voltages from line-
to-line voltages in a manner that is unconventional. Appeal Br. 17. Appellant
further argues that there is no evidence that this method or anything similar
has been used for voltage measurement and, therefore, the claimed invention
Appeal 2019-000987
Application 14/263,565

20
solves a technology-based problem in an unconventional manner when
viewed as a whole and the unconventionality of the claimed solution
indicates the presence of an “inventive concept” amounting to “significantly
more” than an abstract idea itself. Id.
These arguments are also unavailing for the reasons the Examiner
presents. Ans. 14.
In Amdocs, the Federal Circuit found the representative claim to entail
an unconventional technological solution to a problem and was “narrowly
drawn to not preempt any and all generic enhancement of data in a similar
system.” Amdocs, 841 F.3d 1288, 1300–1301. The Examiner cites to Fu8 as
evidence that it is known to determine line-to-neutral voltages where line-to-
neutral measurements may not be available. Ans. 4 (citing Fu ¶¶ 1, 6).
Moreover, Fu illustrates the use of equations in combination with
geometrical/trigonometrical functions to determine this variable. Fu Figure
2, ¶¶ 22–24. In view of this, Appellant has not explained adequately how the
claimed method to derive accurate line-to-neutral voltages from line-to-line
voltages using geometric/trigonometric functions is unconventional. Appeal
Br. 17. Nor has Appellant explained adequately how the claimed invention is
“narrowly drawn to not preempt any and all” applications of the
trigonometric equations.
We also disagree with Appellant’s argument that the lack of a novelty
or obviousness rejection is evidence that the claimed invention is not
directed to an abstract idea and recite significantly more than the alleged

8 US 2005/0207198 A1, published September 22, 2005.
Appeal 2019-000987
Application 14/263,565

21
abstract idea. Appeal Br. 16. We note that the mere fact an abstract idea is
novel or non-obvious does not render the subject matter eligible under § 101.
In response to an argument that a claim contained an inventive
concept because it was not shown to be anticipated under § 102 or obvious
under § 103, the Federal Circuit has stated:
[t]hat position misstates the law. It is true that “the § 101 patent-
eligibility inquiry and, say, the § 102 novelty inquiry might
sometimes overlap.” Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1304. But, a claim for a
new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101
inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102
novelty.
Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir.
2016).
Therefore, we find no element or ordered combination of elements
recited in claim 17 contains any “inventive concept” or adds anything
“significantly more” to transform the abstract concept (i.e., mental processes
and mathematical concepts) into a patent-eligible application.
Accordingly, we conclude that method claims 1–17 are directed to
patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. They ensnare the
abstract ideas of a mental process and mathematical concept for determining
a line-to-neutral voltage and do not recite additional elements, individually
or as an ordered combination, that integrate this mental process and
mathematical concept into a practical application.
CONCLUSION
Upon consideration of the record, and for the reasons given above and
in the Non-Final Office Action and the Examiner’s Answer, the decision of
the Examiner rejecting claims 1–17 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to
patent ineligible subject matter is affirmed.
Appeal 2019-000987
Application 14/263,565

22
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–17 101 Ineligible subject
matter
1–17

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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED