Meng, Yunsong et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 26, 2019

14428171 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 26, 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.
14/428,171 03/13/2015 Yunsong Meng 2012P22059WOUS 9674
28524 7590 12/26/2019
SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230
Orlando, FL 32817
EXAMINER
MARINI, MATTHEW G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2854
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/26/2019 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):
ipdadmin.us@siemens.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte YUNSONG MENG
and DAN G. TECUCI

Appeal 2019-002200
Application 14/428,171
Technology Center 2800
____________

BEFORE GEORGE C. BEST, JEFFREY W. ABRAHAM, and
MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.

McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 seeks review of the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–17. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Siemens
Corporation. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-002200
Application 14/428,171

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The present application generally relates to “sensor-based diagnosis,
and more particularly, to a system of diagnosing turbine systems based on
sensor data.” Spec. 1.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below:
1. A method of diagnosing a fault in a turbine system,
comprising:
receiving sensor data of a first component of the turbine
system;
identifying a mode of the first component;
inputting the sensor data and the mode of the first component
into a first model-based diagnostic engine and a data-driven
diagnostic engine to generate a first component diagnosis;
receiving sensor data of a second component of the turbine
system;
identifying a mode of the second component;
inputting the sensor data and the mode of the second
component into a second model-based diagnostic engine and
the data-driven diagnostic engine to generate a second
component diagnosis;
generating a component abstraction for the first component
diagnosis and the second component diagnosis;
inputting the component abstraction to a system model-based
diagnostic engine; and
producing from the system model-based diagnostic engine, a
diagnosis for an additional component, different from the first
component and the second component, the additional
component not contributing to the sensor data of the first
component or the sensor data of the second component.
Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2019-002200
Application 14/428,171

3
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Name Reference Date
James et al. (“James”) US 2003/0014692 Al Jan. 16, 2003
Miller US 2008/0147361 Al June 19, 2008
de Moura et al.
(“de Moura”)
US 2009/0192767 Al July 30, 2009
Khan et al. (“Khan”) US 2010/0153080 Al June 17, 2010
Glomann et al.
(“Glomann”)
US 2011/0022214 Al Jan. 27, 2011
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1. Claims 1–17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to
patent-ineligible subject matter. Non-Final Act. 2–8.
2. Claims 1–3, 7–11, and 15–17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) (pre-AIA) as being unpatentable over Khan in view of
Glomann and Miller. Id. at 8–12.
3. Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (pre-
AIA) as being unpatentable over Khan in view of Glomann,
Miller, and James. Id. at 12–13.
4. Claims 5, 6, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
(pre-AIA) as being unpatentable over Khan in view of
Glomann, Miller, James, and de Moura. Id. at 13–14.
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1. The Examiner rejects claims 1–17 as directed to
unpatentable subject matter. Id. at 2–8. The Examiner determines that the
claims are directed to the abstract idea of collecting and analyzing
Appeal 2019-002200
Application 14/428,171

4
information and displaying the results thereof. Id. at 2. The Examiner
further determines that the claims lack additional elements that provide
“significantly more” than the recited abstract claim elements. Id.
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, we
are guided by 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 with
that framework, we first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.”
See id. 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 mental processes. Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69 (1972). 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
Appeal 2019-002200
Application 14/428,171

5
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.
In January 2019, the PTO published revised guidance on the
application of section 101. 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Guidance”). Under the
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 MPEP2 § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)).
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.

2 Manual of Patent Examining Procedure.
Appeal 2019-002200
Application 14/428,171

6
Appellant argues that the method of the claims, considered as a whole,
is not an abstract idea under Step 2A of the Section 101 analysis. Even if it
were considered abstract, Appellant argues, when considered as an ordered
combination, the claims are directed to significantly more than an abstract
idea. Appeal Br. 4–10.
Step 1
Step 1 of the eligibility analysis requires determining whether the
claimed subject matter falls within any of the four statutory categories of
patentable subject matter. Guidance 53–54. Section 101 provides that
“[w]hoever 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.
Claims 1–8 are to a “method.” Appeal Br. 15–16 (Claims App.). A
method falls within the scope of the term “process” as used in section 101.
See 35 U.S.C. § 100(b). Accordingly, claims 1–8 fall within a statutory
category. Claims 9–16 are to a “system” that includes elements such as a
memory device and a processor. Appeal Br. 17–18 (Claims App.). Such a
system qualifies as an article of manufacture. See MPEP § 2106.03 (Rev.
08.2017, January 2018). Claim 17 is to “[a] computer program product . . .
comprising: a non-transitory computer readable storage medium.” Appeal
Br. 19 (Claims App.). Because the medium is non-transitory, it may fall
within the category of a “manufacture.” MPEP § 2106.03 (Rev. 08.2017,
January 2018).
Appeal 2019-002200
Application 14/428,171

7
In view of the foregoing, we determine that the claimed subject matter
falls within one or more of the four statutory categories of patentable subject
matter.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Under Step 2A, Prong 1 of the Guidance, we must determine whether
claim 1, being directed to a statutory class of invention, nevertheless recites
a judicial exception. Guidance 54.
The Examiner determines that the claims are directed to the abstract
idea of “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of
the collection and analysis.” Non-Final Act. 2. The Examiner determines
that claim 1 recites certain abstract ideas as follows:
Claim 1 recites, in part, inputting the sensor data and the
mode of the first component into a first model-based diagnostic
engine and a data-driven diagnostic engine to generate a first
component diagnosis; receiving sensor data of a second
component of the turbine system; identifying a mode of the
second component; inputting the sensor data and the mode of the
second component into a second model-based diagnostic engine
and the data-driven diagnostic engine to generate a second
component diagnosis; generating a component abstraction for the
first component diagnosis and the second component diagnosis;
and inputting the component abstraction to a system model-
based diagnostic engine and producing from the system model-
based diagnostic engine, a diagnosis for an additional
component, different from the first component and the second
component, the additional component not contributing to the
sensor data of the first component or the sensor data of the second
component. These steps describe the concept of collecting
information (via sensor data), analyzing it (via identifying,
abstraction and generating), and displaying certain results of the
Appeal 2019-002200
Application 14/428,171

8
collection and analysis (via the diagnosis), which corresponds to
concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts.
Id. at 3. Independent claims 9 and 17 include the same or closely similar
limitations. Appeal Br. 17, 19 (Claims App.).
The claims require the collection of data from a first and second
sensor. The claims further require identification of data regarding the mode
of functioning of the first and second components (identification of mode of
functioning appears to be derived from sensor data, see Spec., Fig. 3). This
information is analyzed “to generate a first [and second] component
diagnosis.” The claims further require using the component diagnoses to
generate “a component abstraction.” The component abstraction is input “to
a system model-based diagnostic engine.”
In determining that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, the
Examiner relies upon Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d
1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016). There, the Federal Circuit determined certain claims
to be directed to an abstract idea where “[t]he focus of the asserted claims . .
. is on collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of
the collection and analysis.” Id. at 1353. In that case, the court further held
that “we have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in
their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially
mental processes within the abstract-idea category.” Id. at 1354; see also
SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
(holding that claims to a “series of mathematical calculations based on
selected information” are directed to abstract ideas); see also Digitech Image
Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350 (Fed. Cir.
2014) (holding that claims to a “process of organizing information through
mathematical correlations” are directed to an abstract idea).
Appeal 2019-002200
Application 14/428,171

9
Claims 1, 9, and 17 require the collection and analysis of data so as to
ultimately arrive at a “diagnosis for an additional component.” An early
process step is “inputting the sensor data and the mode of the first
component into a first model-based diagnostic engine and a data-driven
diagnostic engine.”
The model-based diagnostic engine is described as “a set of logical
rules describing how the system should perform, the set of constraints it
should obey, etc.” Spec. 6. This falls within the Electric Power Group
court’s description of abstract ideas as “analyzing information by steps
people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms.”
The claims further require use of a “data-driven diagnostic engine.”
The Specification indicates that “[t]he data-driven engine 313a may be
learned from sensor data annotated as either faulty or normal and may
produce as output such faulty or normal findings for unseen sensor data.”
Spec. 6. While this description lacks clarity, it is apparent that the data-
driven engine performs a set of analytical steps to produce an “output.” Id.
We determine this to be an abstract step on the same basis as with regard to
the model-based diagnostic engine, above.
The claims further require generating a “component abstraction” for
each component diagnosis. The Specification teaches as follows with regard
to the component abstraction:
In response to the receipt of the component diagnosis 315a
and 315x, the component abstraction module 317 aims to
improve diagnostics by abstracting away from individual
components and their behavior. One way to achieve this is to
remove distinctions that are not important for the considered
Appeal 2019-002200
Application 14/428,171

10
system. For example, two pipes connected to the input and
output of a valve can be abstracted to just the valve.
Spec. 7. The example from the Specification—treating two pipes and a
valve as only the valve—is a concept that may be performed in the human
mind and is therefore abstract as a mental process. See Guidance 52.
The claims further require use of a system model-based diagnostic
engine to generate a diagnosis for an additional component. The
Specification gives broad guidance that “[t]he system model-based
diagnostic engine uses non-monotonic reasoning,” and “[t]he system model-
based diagnostic engine include models expressed with Satisfiability
Modulo Theories.” Spec. 2. We determine this to be an abstract step on the
same basis as with regard to the model-based diagnostic engine and data-
driven diagnostic engines, above.
Appellant does not submit argument in direct response to this
determination. See generally Appeal Br. Nor does Appellant submit
argument regarding the dependent claims.
In view of the foregoing, we determine that Appellant has not shown
error with regard to the Examiner’s determination that the claims recite an
abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Next, we determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the
recited abstract idea (judicial exception) into a practical application. The
Guidance teaches that one may evaluate integration into a practical
application by:
(a) identifying whether there are any additional
elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial
exception(s); and
Appeal 2019-002200
Application 14/428,171

11
(b) evaluating those additional elements
individually and in combination to determine
whether they integrate the exception into a practical
application.
Guidance 54–55.
The Guidance further teaches certain exemplary conditions that are
indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may
integrate the exception into a practical application. One such circumstance
is where “[a]n additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning
of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field.”
Id. at 55.
Appellant argues that the claimed method improves the operation of a
physical system as follows:
Appellant agree[s] that the claims are directed towards
diagnosing a fault in a turbine system, but respectfully disagrees
that the claimed method and system does not effect or improve
the operation of a physical system. Appellant specifically
mentions and claims that sensor data 240, 303a, 303x is received
from a physical system, i.e., a turbine system, see for example
page 2 lines 12 and page 5 lines 16-22. Accordingly, the claimed
method and system recites a specific and concrete output, the
diagnosis of an unmonitored system component (of the turbine
system) via available sensor data coming from one or more
monitored components. One skilled in the art of diagnosing
faults in a physical system such as a turbine system would
understand that the use of the fault data of an unmonitored
component is beneficial so that the system may then make a
physical change such as, in an extreme example, a shutdown to
protect the turbine system from catastrophic damage.
Appeal Br. 8. That is, Appellant argues that the method relates to a physical
system and the method produces information that may lead to a physical
change. In its Reply Brief, Appellant additionally argues that the claims are
Appeal 2019-002200
Application 14/428,171

12
integrated into the practical application of producing a diagnosis for a
turbine system where such turbine system is an additional element. Reply
Br. 3.
In the Answer, the Examiner responds that “[t]he instant claims do not
recite[] any additional elements or extra solution activities that transform the
identified abstract idea to a physical system or the operation thereof.”
Answer 3. The Examiner further observes that “the features upon which
[A]ppellant relies (i.e.[,] so that the system may then make a physical change
such as, in an extreme example, a shutdown to protect the turbine system
form catastrophic damage) are not recited in the rejected claim(s).” Id.
Here, each step of claims 1, 9, and 17 (the independent claims) that
occurs subsequent to “receiving sensor data” requires the analysis or
manipulation of data. As noted above, a “series of mathematical
calculations based on selected information” is abstract in nature. SAP Am.,
898 F.3d at 1163. Here, there is simply no “additional” (non-abstract) claim
limitation that effects a physical change/improvement. We further concur
with the Examiner’s determination that a potential physical consequence
such as a turbine shutdown is not set forth in the claim and cannot impart
patentability.
We additionally determine that the “turbine system” claim limitation
merely limits the use of an abstract idea “‘to a particular technological
environment.’” See Bilski, supra, at 610–611; see also Khan ¶¶ 1–2.
Accordingly, we determine that Appellant has not shown error with
regard to the Examiner’s determination that claims 1, 9, and 17 lack
sufficient additional elements to incorporate the claims into a practical
application. As Appellant has not presented separate argument with regard
Appeal 2019-002200
Application 14/428,171

13
to the dependent claims, it has not shown error with regard to the
Examiner’s determination that such claims are “directed to” abstract subject
matter.
Step 2B
Having determined that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea, we next
consider Step 2B under the Guidance (Step 2 of the Mayo/Alice framework),
whether claim 1 includes specific limitations beyond the judicial exception
that are not “well-understood, routine, conventional” activity in the field, or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously
known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial
exception.
Appellant argues that claim 1 (and all independent claims) recites
limitations that add “significantly more,” including the following:
producing from the system model-based diagnostic engine, a
diagnosis for an additional component, different from the first
component and the second component, the additional component
not contributing to the sensor data of the first component or the
sensor data of the second component.
Appeal Br. 9; see also id. at 15 (Claims App.). Appellant argues that the
method (or system or computer code) “provides additional diagnostics
information for components that are not directly monitored by sensor data,
or represented by models associated with components connected to the
sensor data.” Id. at 9. Appellant further argues that “the claimed invention
requires a new source or type of information or techniques for analyzing it.”
Id. (citing Elec. Power Grp.). Appellant asserts that the claimed method (or
system) recites a new type of information to provide a new diagnostic
technique. Id. As a result, Appellant argues, the claims recite a “specific
Appeal 2019-002200
Application 14/428,171

14
and concrete output” that provides significantly more than mere analysis and
display of information. Id.
In the Answer, the Examiner responds that “[t]he step of producing a
diagnosis [relied upon by the Appellant] is nothing but a mathematical
result.” Answer 4. The Examiner cites caselaw that provides “[a]dding one
abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does
not render the claim non-abstract.” Id. (citing RecogniCorp, LLC v.
Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The Examiner further
asserts that an inventive concept is furnished only where an element or
combination of elements recited in the claim is in addition to (beyond) the
judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole
amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Id. (citing
Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217–8).
Here, the only elements of claim 1 that may be nonabstract are
diagnosis “in a turbine system” and “receiving sensor data.” Monitoring
and diagnosis of a turbine system is well-understood, routine, conventional
activity in the field. See, e.g., Khan, Abstract, Fig. 1. Further, the use of
sensors in such activity is well-understood, routine, and conventional. See,
e.g., id., Abstract, Fig. 3, ¶ 2. Whether the elements of claim 1 (and its
dependent claims) are considered individually or as an ordered combination,
they do not provide significantly more than the recited abstract elements.
Independent claim 9 is to a “system for diagnosing a fault in a turbine
system” that includes “a memory device for storing a program” and “a
processor in communication with the memory device.” Appeal Br. 17, 19
(Claims App.). Independent claim 17 is to a “computer program product for
diagnosing a fault in a turbine system.” Use of such general purpose
Appeal 2019-002200
Application 14/428,171

15
components is well-understood, routine, and conventional. See, e.g., Khan ¶
26; Spec. 9. As above, the use of such components, considered individually
or as an ordered combination, do not provide significantly more than the
recited abstract elements.
We further concur with the Examiner’s determination that a sequence
of abstract ideas is not “something more” than an abstract idea. Similarly,
Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner’s determination that
producing a diagnosis from a data-based and model-based diagnostic engine
is an abstract step.
Accordingly, we determine that Appellant has not shown that any of
claims 1, 9, and 17 include additional elements that provide “something
more” than the judicial exception so as to render the subject matter of the
claim patent eligible. Nor has Appellant offered separate argument
regarding any dependent claim. As a consequence, we determine that
Appellant has not shown error in the rejection of any claim found to be
directed to ineligible subject matter.
Rejection 2. The Examiner rejects claims 1–3, 7–11, and 15–17 as
obvious over Khan in view of Glomann and further in view of Miller. Non-
Final Act. 8–12.
Independent claims 1 and 17 require, inter alia, “inputting the sensor
data and the mode of the first component into a first model-based diagnostic
engine and a data-driven diagnostic engine to generate a first component
diagnosis.” Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). Independent
claim 9 includes a similar limitation. Id. at 17. The Examiner finds that
Khan teaches “a data-driven diagnostic engine (301) to generate a first
component diagnosis (302).” Non-Final Act. 9.
Appeal 2019-002200
Application 14/428,171

16
Khan, titled PHYSICS-BASED LIFESPAN MODELING, describes a
method for modeling the lifespan of a turbine engine component that
“includes determining a design-phase model of the lifespan of a[] turbine
engine component; fusing the design-phase model with sensor data collected
during operation of the turbine engine component to produce an updated
model.” Khan, Abstract. Khan further describes “fusing the updated model
with data collected during an inspection of the turbine engine component to
produce an overall model of the lifespan of the turbine engine component.”
Id.
In support of the rejection, the Examiner relies upon certain steps set
forth in Figure 3 of Khan (reproduced below).

Figure 3 “shows an embodiment of a method 300 for a remote monitoring
and diagnostic (RMD) phase.” Khan ¶ 20. Khan further teaches that
“during engine operation, engine sensors measure the operating conditions
of the engine component in block 301 . . . . The collected RMD data
provides a unit specific usage profile for the engine component. The design
Appeal 2019-002200
Application 14/428,171

17
model created in block 209 of FIG. 2 is fused with the RMD data in block
302.” Id.
Appellant argues that Khan does not teach a data-driven diagnostic
engine. Appellant argues that the Specification “recites that a data-driven
system may make a diagnosis based solely on the sensor data, see page 2
line[s] 15–16, which states, ‘A data-driven system may make a diagnosis
based solely on sensor data.’” Appeal Br. 9. Appellant seeks to distinguish
the claim term “data-driven diagnostic engine” from the model taught by
Khan on the basis that Khan teaches to use both sensor (“RMD”) data and
design model data. Id. That is, Appellant argues that the term “data-driven
diagnostic engine” is limited to the analysis of sensor data.
In support of its proposed interpretation, Appellant cites to the
following portion of the Specification:
A diagnosis system may be model-based or data driven. A
model-based system relies on a model of a system, how system
components are connected, how they are intended to function,
etc. A data-driven system may make a diagnosis based solely
on sensor data.
Spec. 2 (emphasis added).
During prosecution, claims are given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the Specification. In re ICON Health and
Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). “Giving claims their
broadest reasonable construction ‘serves the public interest by reducing the
possibility that claims, finally allowed, will be given broader scope than is
justified.’” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir.
2004) (citations omitted). “An essential purpose of patent examination is to
fashion claims that are precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous. Only in
this way can uncertainties of claim scope be removed, as much as possible,
Appeal 2019-002200
Application 14/428,171

18
during the administrative process.” In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 322 (Fed. Cir.
1989). “Construing claims broadly during prosecution is not unfair to the
applicant . . . because the applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims
to obtain more precise claim coverage.” Am. Acad., 367 F.3d at 1364.
Here, the Specification states merely that “[a] data-driven system may
make a diagnosis based solely on sensor data.” Spec. 2 (emphasis added).
The Specification does not clearly indicate that no other information may be
considered. Considering the term “data-driven diagnostic engine” in view of
the Specification and according such term its broadest reasonable
interpretation, we determine that it does not require the exclusion of
consideration of information other than sensor data. Accordingly, we do not
find Appellant’s argument in this regard to be persuasive.
Appellant additionally asserts error with regard to the Examiner’s
finding that Miller teaches producing “from the system model-based
diagnostic engine, a diagnosis for an additional component, different from
the first component and the second component” as required by independent
claims 1, 9, and 17. Appeal Br. 12–13.
The Examiner finds that Miller teaches to produce a diagnosis for the
claimed “additional component” where it teaches signals that represent “an
associated subsystem.” Non-Final Act. 10. The Examiner finds that the first
and second components are “subsystems 106 and 108 used to collect data
and predict failures of the associated subsystem.” Id. Figure 1, depicting
such subsystems, is reproduced below.
Appeal 2019-002200
Application 14/428,171

19

Figure 1 is a block diagram of a health monitoring scheme. Miller ¶ 9.
Appellant argues that review of the Specification indicates that the
“associated subsystem models 120 and 122” are associated with subsystems
106 and 108 – not an additional component. Appeal Br. 12–13; see also
Spec. ¶¶ 14–19.
In the Answer, the Examiner finds that, while Miller illustrates only
subsystems 106 and 108, “system 102 includes any number of subsystems.”
Appeal 2019-002200
Application 14/428,171

20
Answer 6. This is consistent with Miller which teaches that “only a first
subsystem 106 and a second subsystem 108 are illustrated [but that] System
102 includes any number of subsystems.” Miller ¶ 10.
The Examiner explains the reasoning of the rejection as follows:
[M]odels 120 and 122 contain interrelationships related to
the subsystems of the system. These model are then limited by
a system model, 124, where system 102 characteristics are
formed as a function of the interrelated and not interrelated
characteristics of subsystems as well as the inherent
characteristics of the system 102 that include other associated
subsystems that make up the system 102 (but are not depicted).
The system model 124 contains at least one predetermined limit
by integrating the plurality of subsystem models that includes, at
least, models 120 and 122. The subsystem are also disclosed as
model 120 to be bounded by at least one predetermined limit of
at least one other subsystem model that includes, at least,
model 122 and/or at least one predetermined limit of system
model 124. From these models, Miller facilitates operation of
systems and their associated subsystems to use data collected
from other subsystems to predicted a system health of different
subsystems interrelated by models of sensed subsystems.
Therefore, it is the examiner’s interpretation that Miller
collects data from subsystems like 106 and 108, where the data
is fed into models that include interrelationships with other
subsystems, not depicted, to make predictions of both depicted
and non-depicted subsystems related to potential failures of the
system that includes all the subsystems.
Answer 6–7. That is, the Examiner finds that Miller teaches subsystems
beyond 106 and 108 that contribute to the overall system model.
Here, the last clause of claim 1 provides as follows:
producing from the system model-based diagnostic engine, a
diagnosis for an additional component, different from the first
component and the second component, the additional
Appeal 2019-002200
Application 14/428,171

21
component not contributing to the sensor data of the first
component or the sensor data of the second component.
Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.) (claims 9 and 17 include the same or similar
limitations). It appears that the intent of the claim may have been to limit
this limitation to the production of a diagnosis for a component for which
data was not collected. A close review of the claim language, however,
indicates that there is no exclusion of a system that produces a diagnosis for
an exemplary third component where the system collects sensor data for a
third component that does not contribute to the sensor data of the first or
second component. This latter type of system is described by Miller.
Accordingly, Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner’s finding
that Miller teaches the last clause of claims 1, 9, and 17.
Rejections 3 and 4. The Examiner rejects claims 4–6, and 12–14 as
obvious over Khan, Glomann, Miller, and certain other references. Non-
Final Act. 12–14. Appellant argues that these rejections should be reversed
for the reasons set forth above with regard to Khan and Miller. Appeal Br.
13. As we have found Appellant’s arguments in this regard not to be
persuasive, we determine that Appellant has not shown error in the rejection
of claims 4–6, and 12–14 as obvious.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–17 as directed to ineligible
subject matter is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–3, 7–11, and 15–17 as obvious
over Khan, Glomann, and Miller is affirmed.
Appeal 2019-002200
Application 14/428,171

22
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 4 and 12 as obvious over Khan,
Glomann, Miller, and James is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 5, 6, 13, and 14 as obvious over
Khan, Glomann, Miller, James, and de Moura is affirmed.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–17 101 Ineligible subject matter 1–17
1–3, 7–11,
15–17 103(a)
Khan, Glomann,
Miller
1–3, 7–11,
15–17
4, 12 103(a) Khan, Glomann, Miller, James 4, 12
5, 6, 13, 14 103(a)
Khan, Glomann,
Miller, James, de
Moura
5, 6, 13, 14
Overall
Outcome 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).
AFFIRMED