Maurice J. Halmos

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 27, 2019

14451038 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 27, 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.
14/451,038 08/04/2014 Maurice J. Halmos RAY-220CON(13-4448) 6051
96194 7590 08/27/2019
Burns & Levinson LLP (Raytheon)
125 High Street
Boston, MA 02110
EXAMINER
ISHIZUKA, YOSHIHISA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2865
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/27/2019 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):
docketing@burnslev.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MAURICE J. HALMOS
____________

Appeal 2018-007794
Application 14/451,038
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before MONTÉ T. SQUIRE, LILAN REN, and
MERRELL C. CASHION, Jr., Administrative Patent Judges.

SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1–18, which are all of the claims pending in this
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 In this Decision, we refer to the Specification filed Aug. 4, 2014 (“Spec.”);
Final Office Action dated Aug. 25, 2017 (“Final Act.”); Advisory Action
dated Nov. 15, 2017 (“Adv. Act.”); Appeal Brief filed Jan. 22, 2018
(“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer dated May 17, 2018 (“Ans.”); and
Reply Brief filed July 16, 2018 (“Reply Br.”).
2 Appellant is the Applicant, Raytheon Company (Bib. Data Sheet 1), which
is also identified as the real party in interest (Appeal Br. 3).
Appeal 2018-007794
Application 14/451,038

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s disclosure relates to a method and a detection system for
remotely measuring rotation of a target. Spec. ¶¶ 1, 5, 13; Abstract.
Embodiments of the disclosure describe systems and corresponding methods
for measuring rotation characteristics (e.g., rotation, magnitude, and
direction) of remote targets. Spec. ¶ 60.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief:
1. A method of remotely measuring rotation of a target,
comprising:
transmitting a coherent light beam;
measuring, at a receiver including a detector having a field
of view divided into at least four spatially distinct light sensing
segments, coherent light of the coherent light beam reflected
from a target incident upon the detector field of view, the incident
coherent light including a speckle pattern that moves over time
with respect to the detector field of view;
outputting, by the detector, a plurality of signals to one or
more processors, each signal representing an intensity of the
reflected light received at a respective detector segment as a
function of time; and
determining, by the one or more processors:
a first intensity as a function of time for reflected
light received at a first half of the detector;
a second intensity as a function of time for reflected
light received at a second half of the detector
corresponding to the second half, the first and second
halves of the detector separated along a first detector axis
of division;
a third intensity as a function of time for reflected
light received at a third half of the detector;
Appeal 2018-007794
Application 14/451,038

3
a fourth intensity as a function of time for reflected
light received at a fourth half of the detector corresponding
to the third half, the third and fourth halves of the detector
separated along a second detector axis of division oriented
orthogonal to the first detector axis of division;
measuring, by the one or more processors, a first
time delay representing a time for the speckle pattern to
move between the first and second detector halves;
measuring, by the one or more processors, a second
time delay representing a time for the speckle pattern to
move between the third and fourth detector halves;
calculating, by the one or more processors, a linear
velocity of the target, V, as the sum of:
a first vector aligned perpendicular to the first
detector axis of division and having a magnitude
given by the measured first time delay; and
a second vector aligned perpendicular to the
second detector axis of division and having a
magnitude given by the measured second time
delay.
Appeal Br. 20–21.
REJECTION
Claims 1–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed
invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural
phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Final Act. 5.
ANALYSIS
I. Standard for Patent Ineligibility
Section 101 of the Patent Act provides “[w]hoever invents or
discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or
composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may
Appeal 2018-007794
Application 14/451,038

4
obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this
title.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court, however, 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. Pty.
Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014) (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted).
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. 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 formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95 (1978)); 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.
Appeal 2018-007794
Application 14/451,038

5
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 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 (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. (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77).
Appeal 2018-007794
Application 14/451,038

6
“[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[] fail[s] to transform
that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id.
The USPTO recently published revised guidance on the application of
§ 101. USPTO’s 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance,
84 Fed. Reg. 50–57 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Guidance”). Under the Guidance, we
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)).3
See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52, 55–56. 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 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 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
II. Examiner’s Findings and Conclusion
Applying the Alice/Mayo two-step framework, the Examiner rejects
claims 1–18 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to a judicial exception.
Final Act. 5–8; Ans. 2–15. At the first step of the Alice/Mayo inquiry, the

3 All references to the MPEP are to Rev. 08.2017 (Jan. 2018).
Appeal 2018-007794
Application 14/451,038

7
Examiner determines claim 1 is “directed to an abstract idea of calculating a
linear velocity . . . similar to the abstract ideas of organizing information
through mathematical correlations and collecting information, and analyzing
it.” Final Act. 5 (citing Digitech Image Tech., LLC v. Electronics for
Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014) and Electric Power Group,
LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1351–52 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). For
example, claim 1 explicitly recites the step of “calculating, by the one or
more processors, a linear velocity of the target, V.” Appeal Br. 21 (Claims
Appendix).
At the second step of the Alice/Mayo inquiry, the Examiner
determines the claim does not include additional elements sufficient to
amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Id. at 5–6. In
particular, the Examiner finds that the steps of (1) “transmitting a coherent
light beam”; (2) “measuring . . . coherent light of the coherent light beam”;
(3) “outputting . . . each signal representing an intensity of the reflected light
received”; (4) “determining, by the one or more processors . . . intensity as a
function of time for reflected light received”; and (5) “measuring, by the one
or more processors . . . time delay representing a time for the speckle pattern
to move” are all recited at a high level of generality, necessary, routine, or
conventional to facilitate the application of the abstract idea. Id. at 5–6.
The Examiner further finds that the additional elements are
well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the
industry, specified at a high level of generality. Final Act. 6. In particular,
as evidenced by the Fluckiger4 reference, the Examiner finds the

4 Fluckiger, US 2010/0101327 A1, published Apr. 29, 2010.
Appeal 2018-007794
Application 14/451,038

8
configuration and apparatus used to implement the additional elements
recited in claim 1 were conventional and known in the prior art at the time of
Appellant’s claimed invention. Id. at 6; Ans. 6–7. The Examiner
determines that “[w]hen considered separately and in combination, the
additional elements do not add significantly more to the abstract idea” and
thus, concludes the claim is patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Final
Act. 6.
With respect to claims 2–18, the Examiner determines that the claims
are directed to an abstract idea similar to claim 1 and, when analyzed as a
whole, concludes the claims are likewise patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §
101 because the additional limitations they recite do not add significantly
more to the abstract idea. Id. at 6–8.
III. Appellant’s Contentions
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection should be reversed
because the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. Appeal Br. 9; Reply
Br. 4. Appellant further argues that, even if the claims recite an abstract
idea, the claims recite additional elements that add significantly more than
the abstract idea itself because “they improve upon existing technology and
processes.” Appeal Br. 9; see also Reply Br. 2–3 (arguing “there exists a
need for improved techniques for measurement of a target’s rotation
characteristics at longer ranges” and “Applicant’s method of determining
target rotation is an improvement that ‘plays an important role in defense
and space awareness’”) (citing Spec. ¶¶ 2–4).
In particular, Appellant argues claim 1 is analogous to the claims
found patent-eligible in Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343
(Fed. Cir. 2017) and distinguishable from the patent-ineligible claims in the
Appeal 2018-007794
Application 14/451,038

9
Electric Power and Digitech cases relied upon by the Examiner. Appeal
Br. 9. Appellant contends that, like the claims found patent-eligible in
Thales, claim 1 relates to object motion tracking and recites “a particular
method of determining target rotation based on the signals from the sensors
in a way not found in the prior art.” Id. at 11. Appellant further contends
the holding in Thales applies here because the claimed method is directed to
a “new and useful technique for using sensors” for remotely measuring
rotation of a target. Id. at 11 (quoting Thales, 850 F.3d at 1349).
Appellant also contends that, in contrast to the patent-ineligible claims
in Electric Power and Digitech, claim 1 is not directed to a generic process
of collection of data, analysis, and display of information (id. at 13) or only
to information in a non-tangible form (id. at 15). Rather, Appellant contends
claim 1 relies on a new source of information generated by the claimed
method and applies a new technique for analyzing the data acquired. Id. at
14. Appellant further contends that the steps performed by claim 1 are not
recited in general terms and are limited to the technical means for
performing them, including, for example, coherent light transmitters and
receivers, specific detector layouts, and the generated speckle pattern. Id.
at 14.
IV. Our Analysis
Appellant presents substantive arguments for the patentability of
claim 1 and relies on principally the same arguments for the patentability of
claims 2–18. Appeal Br. 7, 9, 16. For our analysis, we select claim 1 as
representative. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
For the reasons stated below, we conclude claim 1 is not directed to a
judicial exception because, although the claim recites an abstract idea, it
Appeal 2018-007794
Application 14/451,038

10
recites additional elements that integrate the recited abstract idea into a
practical application.
A. Alice/Mayo Step One, 2019 Guidance Step 2A Prong One
When we assess what the claims are directed to, we must do so at the
same level of generality or abstraction expressed in the claims. Enfish, LLC
v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Here, claim 1
recites a “method of remotely measuring rotation of a target” that includes
(1) transmitting a coherent light beam; (2) measuring, at a receiver including
a detector having a field of view divided into at least four spatially distinct
light sensing segments, coherent light of the coherent light beam reflected
from a target; (3) outputting, by the detector, a plurality of signals to one or
more processors, each signal representing the intensity of the reflected light
received at a respective detector segment; (4) determining, by the one or
more processors, the intensity as a function of time for the reflected light
received at the respective detector segments; (5) measuring, by the one or
more processors, the time delay representing a time for the speckle pattern to
move between the respective detector segments; and (6) calculating the
linear velocity of the target. See Appeal Br. 20–21 (Claims Appendix).
Collectively, the recited steps describe determining the rotation
characteristics of a target using a specific configuration of sensors. See
Spec. Title, ¶ 1 (“TARGET ROTATION DETERMINATION BY
SPECKLE MOTION CHARACTERIZATION”), ¶ 4 (stating “there exists a
need for improved techniques for measurement of a target’s rotation
characteristics at longer ranges”). In particular, the “determining” and
“calculating” steps of claim 1 recite mathematical concepts (e.g.,
mathematical relationships or mathematical calculations) because they
Appeal 2018-007794
Application 14/451,038

11
involve determining the mathematical relationship between the intensity of
the reflected light received as a function of time and calculating the linear
velocity of the target based on the time delay for a speckle pattern to move.
See, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 26, 28, Abstract (“The linear rotation of the target may be
determined from cross-correlation of the light intensity-time response
measured at orthogonal pairs of detector halves arranged from combinations
of the detector segments.”).
Thus, we conclude under Step 2A Prong 1 of the Guidance that
claim 1 recites a judicial exception, i.e., an abstract idea that falls within the
mathematical concepts grouping. Because claim 1 recites a judicial
exception (i.e., an abstract idea), we proceed to the second prong of the first
step of the Alice/Mayo analysis.
B. Alice/Mayo Step One, 2019 Guidance Step 2A Prong Two
To evaluate a claim under prong two, we: “(a) [i]dentify[] whether
there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial
exception(s); and (b) evaluat[e] those additional elements individually and in
combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a
practical application.” Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–55. Additional
elements that merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to an abstract
idea fail to integrate the abstract idea into a patent-eligible practical
application. See id. at 55. Here, for the following reasons, we determine
claim 1 recites additional elements that integrate the recited abstract idea
into a practical application.
For example, in addition to the “calculating” step, claim 1 recites
among other elements: (1) “transmitting a coherent light beam”; (2) “a
receiver including a detector having a field of view divided into at least four
Appeal 2018-007794
Application 14/451,038

12
spatially distinct light sensing segments, coherent light of the coherent light
beam reflected from a target incident upon the detector field of view, the
incident coherent light including a speckle pattern that moves over time with
respect to the detector field of view”; (3) “a plurality of signals to one or
more processors, each signal representing an intensity of the reflected light
received at a respective detector segment as a function of time”; (4) “the first
and second halves of the detector separated along a first detector axis of
division”; and (5) “the third and fourth halves of the detector separated along
a second detector axis of division oriented orthogonal to the first detector
axis of division” to perform the recited functions of claim 1. See Appeal
Br. 7–8, 20–21; see also Spec. ¶ 60 (disclosing that the “system includes a
receiver housing, including optics, that direct coherent light (e.g., laser light)
reflected from a target object onto the field of view of a detector” and the
“detector measures the intensity and frequency of the reflected coherent light
. . . and outputs a plurality of signals”); ¶ 65 (describing “a detector with
four segments, arranged in equal sized quadrants” and configured such that
“the first and second halves are separated by a first detector axis of division,
while the third and fourth halves are separated by a second detector axis of
division”); ¶ 64 (“By analyzing the return signals measured at different
detector segments, target rotation and direction may be determined.”).
When we consider these additional elements, alone and as ordered
combinations with the other elements of the claim, we determine that claim
1 is directed to a method and detection system that uses sensors in a
particular manner to determine the rotation characteristics of a target at
longer ranges. See Spec. ¶¶ 2–4, 60–70. Claim 1 specifies a particular
configuration of sensors and a particular method of using the data from the
Appeal 2018-007794
Application 14/451,038

13
sensors for remotely measuring rotation characteristics (e.g., rotation,
magnitude, and direction) of a target. Id. ¶¶ 64–68. Indeed, these additional
elements apply the method, in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a
drafting effort designed to monopolize the mathematical concepts exception.
See MPEP § 2106.05(e).
The mathematical concepts discussed above in the Alice/Mayo Step
One, 2019 Guidance Step 2A Prong One section are a consequence of the
particular configuration and positioning of the sensors to determine the
rotation characteristics of a target. Rather than merely reciting the
mathematical concepts themselves, the claim seeks to protect “the
application of physics to the unconventional configuration of sensors as
disclosed.” Thales, 850 F.3d at 1349. “That a mathematical equation is
required to complete the claimed method and system does not doom the
claims to abstraction.” Id.
We also find claim 1 to be similar to the claims at issue in Thales, in
which mathematical concepts were used to improve particular technology.
See Thales, 850 F.3d at 1348–1349 (finding patent-eligibility upon
considering “claims directed to a new and useful technique for using sensors
to more efficiently track an object on a moving platform”); Reply Br. 2–3.
See also MPEP § 2106.05(a)(II) (“The courts have also found that
improvements in technology beyond computer functionality may
demonstrate patent eligibility”).
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that claim 1 recites additional
elements that integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application.
Appeal 2018-007794
Application 14/451,038

14
Thus, we conclude claim 1 is not directed to a judicial exception, e.g., an
abstract idea.
Because we have determined that claim 1 is not directed to a judicial
exception, we need not proceed to step two of the Alice/Mayo framework.
Claim 1 is patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. For similar reasons, we
conclude independent claims 8 and 15, which recite limitations
commensurate with those of claim 1, and dependent claims 2–7, 9–14, and
16–18 are patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of
claims 1–18.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–18 is reversed.
It is ordered that the Examiner’s decision is reversed.
REVERSED