COMMISSIONER'S DECISIONS
OBVIOUSNESS & NONSTATUTORY, SEC. 2 & 28(3) Control of Industrial Plant
A control system for operating a plant which includes control drive means for
controlling the plant, means for detection, the running state of the plant and control
means responsive to a signal from the detecting means for applying a control
signal to the drive means is statutory subject matter and not obvious in view
of the cited art. Final Action; Reversed
**************
Patent application 241,635 (341-110) was filed on December 12, 1975 for
an invention entitled METHOD AND SYSTEM OF CONTROLLING PLANTS. The invent-
ors are Yoichiro Kogure, Toshima Minoura, and Toshio Fujiwara, assignors
to Tokyo Shibaura Electric Co.Ltd. The Examiner in charge of the applic-
ation took a Final Action refusing to allow the application to proceed to
patent.
The application relates to a control system for industrial plants as shown
in figure 7 reproduced below. Signals of the plant's running state of
operation pass to transmitter PT for coding and transmission to the process
input device PI for entry into the computer structure. These coded
operating state signals enter element SCN which forms part of the system
for continually comparing the operating state with a predetermined stored
plant state. Any change detected by element SCN is acted on by another
part of the control process, member ACP, to produce a trigger signal which
passes into the auxiliary memory to seek out an appropriate signal from
one of the action lists ACTL stored therein. Each action list is a module
incorporating several actions indicative of a plant state, and the action
list emits one signal representative of the several actions for controlling
the plant state. The ACP receives an appropriate action list signal and
interprets and translates it into a control output signal which is sent to
output device PO and from there to the controlled operation, for example
to a control drive CD to correct the plant's operation.
(see formula I)
In the Final Action the Examiner refused all the claims for being obvious
in view of the following patents:
Canada 925,193 Apr. 24, 1973 Koepcke
928,829 Jan. 19, 1973 Bakke
United States 3,614,745 Oct. 19, 1971 Podvin
3,555,251 Jan. 12, 1971 Shavit
3,555,252 Jan. 12, 1971 Garden
The patent to Koepcke relates to controlling a process as changes occur
caused by variables therein, such as flow or temperature. Figure 1 on the
next page depicts the arrangement. The process responds to two control means.
The first means 14 transmits a signal derived from the controller circuits 12
interacting with a separate set of processing circuits 26. The second means
comprises a plurality of separate controllers providing signals supplied by
an equation solver 22 continually receiving information directly from the
process. The solver also sends a signal to a comparator circuit 16 in the
controller circuits for comparison with a signal from a sensor 20 of the actual
position of the first means. Thus the error signal is determined. This is
sent to control circuits 18 in the controller, and at the same time is passed
to the processing circuits where a gain signal is produced indicative of a
forward or reverse change in the process performance. The gain signal is sent
to a gain adjustments device 24 in the controller. The signal from this
device is then interacted with the error signal by the control circuits 18 to
produce the signal transmitted from the first means to the process.
<IMG>
The Bakke control system provides manipulated signals to control the actuator
means which regulates the process, as shown in figure 1 following.
An output signal 16 of process operation is fed continuously to a summing
amplifier 15, and to a response generator 17 containing inter alia comparator
circuits for measuring the output against a predetermined model. An input
analog electric signal 18 for example, and a manipulated signal 19 are also
received by the response generator which uses the comparator circuits to
produce two signals . The first, 22, representative of the input signal, and
the process output signal are fed to the amplifier which sums them and
produces an error indication signal 23. The error signal in turn receives
feedback compensation correction and then arrives at an integrator 26, as
does the second signal 21 derived by the comparative circuits at the
generator to indicate the value and direction of the correction needed.
Using these two signals the integrator produces the manipulated signals.
The system therefore reacts to changes in input signals and to process changes
during operation.
<IMG>
The patent to Podvin et al describes a data processing system for detecting
independent tasks, and provides a means and method for allowing the dynamic
allocation of system resources to independently operable tasks. It has a
control apparatus which acts both as a resource distributor-manager, and
as a controller into which each system resource reports when it is free from
whatever task it was performing.
The control system of the Shavit patent distributes a total temperature
conditioning load among several apparatuses. It uses a computer to optimize
overall efficiency by distributing the load to them in accordance with their
capability according to stored efficiency data for each apparatus, in order
to obtain a minimum power input to each of them. The computer also updates
the stored efficiency data periodically by measuring operating characteristics
and making changes to the stored data, and then storing the revised data
for subsequent operation.
The patent to Garden describes a process control system including a
learning control system using a technique which derives and applies a
signal from a stored command to provide a position resolution of an element,
and after an interval to permit the element to come to rest, compares the
obtained results with those expected and makes a correction to the stored
commands.
In the Final Action the Examiner rejected the application and all claims
in view of Sections 2 and 28(3) of the Act for failing to define patentable
subject matter. He also rejected claim 1 for being directed to commonly
known steps, and claims 5 and 6 for reciting computer components known
in the art. He further rejected all the claims for differing from the
cited patents merely by the nature of the algorithm.
The Applicant presented arguments in response to the Examiner's objections,
and said (in part) as follows:
...
...the Examiner has failed to indicate where in the references
the features are described nor has he indicated upon what
basis the features even if described in the references could
be said to be common general knowledge.
It would appear that the Examiner is attempting to circumvent
the obviousness test wherein there is need to show a basis
for combining various features from various sources to mosaic
the invention by simply asserting that the features were common
general knowledge.
...
The invention defined in the system claims does not constitute
an algorithm. These claims are means combination claims and are
not such as to "preempt a mathematical algorithm". The invention
provides advantages as are described on pages 34 through 36
which show the invention to provide novel results and have a
real utility. Among the advantages of the invention is the use of
action lists which produce new and unexpected advantages. By
means of the invention it is possible to conduct the operation
of the plant without requiring laborous steps such as preparation
of block diagrams and flow charts and coding of the information
into machine words, thus greatly saving time and labour.
The issues before the Board are whether or not the application and claims
present patentable features in view of Section 2 and Section 28(3) of the
Patent Act and in view of the cited art.
Claim 1 reads:
In a method of controlling the operation of a plant by means
of an electronic computer including memory means of the type
wherein a process signal corresponding to the operation state of
the plant is generated, the process signal being compared with a
predetermined reference signal and the plant being controlled
by the result of the comparison, the improvement which comprises
the steps of predetermining the judging conditions of the
plant states and control and supervisory operations corresponding
to respective judging conditions in the form of tables, preparing
a plurality of action lists having a standard form of plant state
judging conditions plus controlling and supervisory operations,
storing the contents of respective action lists in memory means
of said computer, sampling said process signal, comparing said
sampled process signal with a reference signal for producing a
trigger signal, selecting an action list corresponding to said
process signal in accordance with said trigger signal, judging
the content of the selected action list for producing a control
signal, and controlling said plant in accordance with said
control signal.
In considering the issues raised in this application, we believe certain
passages in Schlumberger Canada Ltd. v The Commissioner of Patents 56 CPR(2d)
at 204 (1981) to be relevant. Being handed down in 1981, this decision was not
available to the Examiner nor the Applicant during prosecution leading to
the Final Action on this case. The Schlumberger decision involved computer-
related subject matter, and Pratte J. had these comments:
In order to determine whether the application discloses a
patentable invention, it is first necessary to determine
what, according to the application, has been discovered.
and
I am of opinion that the fact that a computer is or
should be used to implement discovery does not change
the nature of that discovery
In determining what has been discovered in the present application, we note
in the Final Action the Examiner acknowledges that the sequence of data
processing steps is new. He has also commented that the cited art "...was
not applied to show anticipation, but ... to show the state of common know-
ledge in the art." For his part the Applicant points out that with respect
to the features of the invention, the Examiner has not indicated any way
"...one would b a guided as to what features are selected and what features
are rejected..." from the cited art. The Applicant asserts that consideration
of his subject matter as a whole is necessary in determining the issue of
subject matter.
We learn from the application that Applicant has discovered a method and
apparatus directed to a control system for operating a plant, which inter
alia includes control drive means for controlling the plant, means for
detecting the running state of the plant and control means responsive to
a signal from the detecting means for applying a control signal to the
drive means. The particular sequence of steps in Applicant's method of
operating the system is also presented. We see that computer structure
forms part of the combination, and is used for storing certain information
in the form of modules. Also disclosed are appropriate means to transmit and
judge input signals and other means to control the process. We are
satisfied that Applicant's combination of components of a plant operating
system with computer structure arranged to participate in the system presents
subject matter which amounts to more than the mere discovery that useful
information may be extracted from stored material. In our view, Applicant has
provided a control system useful in operating an industrial plant which is the
kind of subject matter that should be acceptable under Section 2. Further,
we have no doubt the system is directed to more than a mere scientific
principle or abstract theorem, and Section 28(3) is no impediment to the
application.
On reviewing the claims we are satisfied the features of the system set down
in the disclosure are defined in the claims. We believe the sequence of steps and
the combination of elements recited therein are not directed solely to a
program or an algorithm and are not directed merely to a computer programmed
in such a manner that the novelty lies solely in the program or algorithm.
We agree with the comment by the Examiner that the sequence of
data processing steps is new, but more than that, we believe Applicant has
placed these steps in an industrial art in a manner not found in the patents
relied on by the Examiner. Notably, the cited art does not show Applicant's
combination of elements and their cooperation to produce a trigger signal which
seeks out as appropriate signal, judges the content and produces a control
signal for controlling the plant's running state. We find therefore the
claims define an acceptable combination of elements and sequence of steps
to control as industrial plant.
Having found the application and the claims to be acceptable, we believe
a Hearing would be unnecessary. We recommend withdrawal of the rejection
of the application and claims for failing to describe patentable subject
matter in view of Section 2 and Section 28(3) of the Act, and for failing
to define patentable features in view of the cited art. We recommend
that the application be returned to the Examiner for continued prosecution.
A. McDonough M.G. Brown S. D. Kot
Chairman Assistant Chairman Member
Patent Appeal Board
I concur with the findings and the recommendation of the Patent Appeal
Board. Accordingly, I withdraw the Final Action and remand the application
for prosecution consistent with the recommendation.
J.H.A. Gari‚py
Commissioner of Patents
Dated at Hull, Quebec
this 6th. day of May, 1985
Agent for Applicant
Fetherstonhaugh & Co.
Box 2999, Station D,
Ottawa, Ont.
K1P 5Y6