General Electric Company

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 15, 2020

2019004723 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 2020)

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.
15/179,034 06/10/2016 Cody Joe BUSHEY 313224-1 (G34.003) 6962
161135 7590 12/15/2020
GRC c/o BUCKLEY, MASCHOFF & TALWALKAR LLC
50 LOCUST AVENUE
NEW CANAAN, CT 06840
EXAMINER
LESNIEWSKI, VICTOR D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2493
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/15/2020 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):
GRCLegal.mail@ge.com
GRCdocketing@bmtpatent.com
szpara@bmtpatent.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CODY JOE BUSHEY, LALIT KESHAV MESTHA,
DANIEL FRANCIS HOLZHAUER, and JUSTIN VARKEY JOHN
Appeal 2019-004723
Application 15/179,034
Technology Center 2400
Before BETH Z. SHAW, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and SCOTT E. BAIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–22. See Final Act. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42 (2018). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as General
Electric Company. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-004723
Application 15/179,034

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a threat detection and localization for
monitoring nodes of an industrial asset control system. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A system to protect an industrial asset control
system, comprising:
a plurality of real-time monitoring node signal inputs to
receive streams of monitoring node signal values over time that
represent a current operation of the industrial asset control
system; and
a threat detection computer platform, coupled to the
plurality of real-time monitoring node signal inputs, to:
(i) receive the streams of monitoring node signal values
and, for each stream of monitoring node signal values, calculate
a feature and generate a current monitoring node feature vector,
(ii) compare each generated current monitoring node
feature vector with a corresponding decision boundary for that
monitoring node, the decision boundary separating a normal
state from an abnormal state for that monitoring node,
(iii) localize an origin of a threat to a particular
monitoring node; and
(iv) automatically transmit a threat alert signal based on
results of said comparisons along with an indication of the
particular monitoring node.

REJECTIONS
Claims 1–9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed
invention is directed to non–statutory subject matter. Final Act. 3.
In the Answer, the Examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 1–22
under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of
Appeal 2019-004723
Application 15/179,034

3
nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly
more. Ans. 3; Final Act. 3.2
Claims 1–22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being
anticipated by Schneider et al. (US 2017/0054751 A1, published Feb. 23,
2017), hereinafter referred to as Schneider. Final Act. 5.

OPINION
Software Per Se
We agree with Appellant that claims 1–9 are not directed to “software
per se.” Independent claim 1 recites a “system to protect an industrial asset
control system” including a “computer platform,” which is described as
including hardware in paragraph 45 of the Specification. See Spec. ¶ 45,
Figs. 1, 13. As such, independent claim 1 is not directed to software per se,
but rather to a system comprising various hardware components having
software installed thereon. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of
claims 1–9 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as software per se on this record.

2 Although the Examiner withdraws this rejection in the Answer, in the event
of future prosecution, the Examiner may wish to reconsider evaluating the
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for patent eligibility. See Elec. Power Grp.,
LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (noting that
analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by
mathematical algorithms, without more, are essentially mental processes
within the abstract idea category); 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter
Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“2019 Revised
Guidance”). In response to received public comments, the Office issued
further guidance on October 17, 2019, clarifying the 2019 Revised
Guidance. USPTO, October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility.

Appeal 2019-004723
Application 15/179,034

4
Anticipation
The Examiner rejects claims 1–22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as
being anticipated by Schneider. The Examiner finds that Schneider discloses
the claimed step of: “receive the streams of monitoring node signal values
and, for each stream of monitoring node signal values, calculate a feature
and generate a current monitoring node feature vector.” Ans. 4–5; Final Act.
5. We agree with Appellant, however, that the cited portions of Schneider do
not disclose all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as
recited in the claim.
Rather, the cited portions of Schneider disclose “select[ing] specific
fields from, for example, the received packet.” Schneider ¶ 90. On this
record, the Examiner does not explain sufficiently how this selection of a
specific field constitutes “for each stream of monitoring node signal values,
calculate a feature and generate a current monitoring node feature vector.”
We agree with Appellant that the vector shown in Figure 4 of Schneider,
which is created by the Data Collection Module 250, includes the 8-bit
Modbus Slave Address 410, the Modbus Function Code 420, and the
Metadata 430, but does not include any feature(s) calculated from stream(s)
of monitoring node signal values. See Schneider ¶ 94, Fig. 4. Unless
Schneider discloses not only all of the limitations claimed but also all of the
limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim, it
cannot anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102. See Net MoneyIn, Inc. v. VeriSign,
Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Accordingly, we do not sustain the anticipation rejection of
independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. For the same reasons, we do not
sustain the rejection of claims 2–22.
Appeal 2019-004723
Application 15/179,034

5
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are reversed.

DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–9 101 Software Per Se 1–9
1–22 102(a)(2) Schneider 1–22
Overall
Outcome
1–22

REVERSED