Zhu Wen et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 18, 2020

13947210 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 18, 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.
13/947,210 07/22/2013 Zhu Wen 20120130-02 6253
126149 7590 03/18/2020
Keysight Technologies, Inc.
C/O CPA Global
900 Second Avenue South
Suite 600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
EXAMINER
AIELLO, JEFFREY P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2864
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/18/2020 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):
keysightdocketing@cpaglobal.com
notice.legal@keysight.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ZHU WEN, YU ZUO, and HONG-WEI KONG
Appeal 2018-006639
Application 13/947,210
Technology Center 2800
Before JEFFREY R. SNAY, MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., and
SHELDON M. MCGEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MCGEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
We have jurisdiction. 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(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Keysight
Technologies, Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-006639
Application 13/947,210
2
BACKGROUND
The claims are directed to a multilevel triggering system for
outputting a complex trigger signal (claim 1), a signal analysis instrument
employing the triggering system (claim 16), and a non-transitory computer
readable medium storing software to be used in the signal analysis
instrument (claim 11). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A multilevel triggering system of a signal analysis
instrument for outputting a complex trigger signal, the system
comprising:
a trigger controlled buffer configured to receive and
buffer an input signal;
a plurality of triggering function modules, each triggering
function module being configured to perform a corresponding
triggering function for detecting a corresponding triggering
condition; and
a triggering matrix comprising a plurality of triggering
levels configured to receive at least a portion of the buffered
input signal from the trigger controlled buffer, each triggering
level being configurable to include at least one trigger block
and each trigger block being configurable to implement one of
the plurality of triggering function modules, each trigger block
generating a corresponding block trigger when the
triggering condition of the corresponding triggering function
module is detected in the received buffered input signal,
wherein each triggering level of the plurality of
triggering levels is configured to generate a corresponding level
trigger when the at least one trigger block in the triggering level
generates the corresponding block trigger, and
wherein the triggering matrix is configured to generate
the complex trigger signal when the plurality of triggering
levels generate corresponding level triggers.

Appeal 2018-006639
Application 13/947,210
3
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Examiner determines that independent claims 1, 11, and 16 “are
directed to an abstract idea in the form of a multilevel triggering system for
outputting a complex triggering signal.” Final Act. 3. For support, the
Examiner states that the claims require
performing a plurality of triggering functions for detecting a
corresponding triggering condition, and a triggering matrix
comprising a plurality of triggering levels configured to receive
at least a portion of the buffered input signal from the trigger
controlled buffer, each triggering level including at least one
trigger block and each trigger block implementing one of the
triggering functions, each trigger block generating a block trigger
when the triggering condition of the corresponding triggering
function module is detected in a buffered input signal, wherein
each triggering level is configured to generate a corresponding
level trigger when the trigger block in the triggering level
generates the corresponding block trigger, and wherein the
triggering matrix is configured to generate the complex trigger
signal when the plurality of triggering levels generate
corresponding level triggers.

Id. The Examiner asserts that this amounts to a “series of steps which could
be carried out manually or mentally,” and “comprise data gathering and
processing steps which correspond to concepts identified as an abstract idea,
or ideas, in the form of a mathematical formula similar to those found to be
non-patent eligible in, e.g., Alice Corp., Electric Power Group,
FairWarning, and Parker v. Flook.” Id.
OPINION
In January 2019, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
published revised guidance on the application of § 101. 2019 Revised Patent
Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019)
Appeal 2018-006639
Application 13/947,210
4
(“2019 Revised Guidance”).2 “All USPTO personnel are, as a matter of
internal agency management, expected to follow the guidance.” Id. at 51;
see also October 2019 Update at 1.
Under the 2019 Revised Guidance and the October 2019 Update, 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) (“Step 2A, Prong One”); and, if so,
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h) (9th ed.
Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018)) (“Step 2A, Prong Two”).3
2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–55.
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not
integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look, under
Step 2B, to whether the claim:

2 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 (the “October
2019 Update”) (available at
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/peg_oct_2019_update.pdf).
3 This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any
additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and
(b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to
determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a
practical application. See 2019 Revised Guidance - Section III(A)(2), 84
Fed. Reg. 54–55.
Appeal 2018-006639
Application 13/947,210
5
(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.
2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–56.
The Examiner’s rejection was issued prior to the 2019 Revised
Guidance. We nevertheless apply the Revised Guidance to the claims at
issue here, and determine that the claims do not recite an abstract idea.
Specifically, our analysis under Step 2A, Prong One reveals that claims 1–20
do not recite a mathematical concept, a method of organizing human
activity,4 or a mental process.
Step 2A, Prong One
Although the Examiner asserts (Final Act. 3) that independent claims
1, 11, and 16 recite method steps that “could be carried out . . . mentally,”
we fail to see how such steps could practically be performed in the human
mind. See the October 2019 Update at 7 (“Claims do not recite a mental
process when they do not contain limitations that can practically be
performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not
equipped to perform the claim limitations.”). The steps identified by the
Examiner––i.e., “performing a plurality of triggering functions,” “each
trigger block implementing one of the plurality of triggering function
modules,” “generating a corresponding block trigger,” “each triggering level

4 The Examiner does not assert that the claims are directed to a method of
organizing human activity. We agree.
Appeal 2018-006639
Application 13/947,210
6
generates a corresponding level trigger,” and “generating a complex trigger
signal” (Final Act. 3)––are not of the type that can practically be carried out
in the human mind. Rather, these triggering functions are carried out by
“signal analysis instruments, such as spectrum analyzers, oscilloscopes and
the like.” Spec. ¶ 2.
Furthermore, although the Examiner states that the claims recite “data
gathering and processing steps . . . in the form of a mathematical formula”
(Final Act. 3), we see no mathematical concept recited in the claims
consistent with the 2019 Revised Guidance or the October 2019 Update.
When determining whether a claim recites a mathematical
concept (i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas
or equations, and mathematical calculations), examiners should
consider whether the claim recites a mathematical concept or
merely includes limitations that are based on or involve a
mathematical concept. A claim does not recite a mathematical
concept . . . if it is only based on or involves a mathematical
concept.
October 2019 Update at 3 (emphasis added).
Here, the Specification is unclear whether one or more mathematical
calculations or formulae are involved in carrying out the various claimed
functions (e.g., “detecting a corresponding triggering condition”). See Spec.
¶9 (discussing how, in one embodiment, a RF downconverter receives an
input signal and provides “a downconverted analog input signal”); id. ¶30
(explaining how first and second “logical expressions are combined to
provide the customized complex triggering function (according to an overall
logical expression) for generating the complex trigger signal when the
combined complex triggering conditions are detected.”). Even if one or
more mathematical calculations or formulae were somehow involved in
carrying out the various claimed functions, however, we are not persuaded
Appeal 2018-006639
Application 13/947,210
7
that would compel us to reach a conclusion that the claims, as a whole, recite
a mathematical concept, and, thus, an abstract idea.
Because we have determined that the independent claims do not recite
an abstract idea, the eligibility analysis ends here, and we need not address
Step 2A, Prong Two.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection is reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–20 101 Subject Matter Eligibility 1–20

REVERSED