Carl W. Riley et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 24, 2020

14493475 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 24, 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.
14/493,475 09/23/2014 Carl W. Riley 7175-231694 4958
69781 7590 04/24/2020
Barnes & Thornburg LLP (Hill-Rom)
11 S. Meridian Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204
EXAMINER
WISE, OLIVIA M.
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1631
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/24/2020 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):
indocket@btlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte CARL W. RILEY and DAN R. TALLENT
____________

Appeal 2018-006205
Application 14/493,475
Technology Center 1600
____________

Before DONALD E. ADAMS, RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, and
JAMIE T. WISZ, Administrative Patent Judges.

WISZ, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2018-006205
Application 14/493,475

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 seeks review of claims 1–6
and 8–10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The Specification describes “person support apparatuses that
incorporate or are used with vital signs monitoring devices and movement
detection systems, and prediction of the onset of a condition.” Spec. ¶ 3.
The Specification also describes a need for further contributions and
improvements with regard to predicting the onset of an adverse condition
prior to the occurrence of the condition. Id. ¶ 6.
Claim 1, the only independent claim, is illustrative and is set forth
below (annotated with bracketed numbers for reference to the limitations in
the claim):
1. A method of predicting the onset of an adverse condition
of a person, the method comprising
[1] receiving at a controller of a person-support structure
a first input signal from an input remote from the person-
support structure, wherein the first input signal includes
information corresponding to a characteristic of a care facility,
wherein the characteristic of the care facility includes at least
one of a staffing level of the care facility, at least one of a date
and a time of day, an amount of people in the care facility, a
size of the care facility, a location of a caregiver within the care

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 Hill-Rom
Services, Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-006205
Application 14/493,475

3
facility, a progress of a caregiver on their rounds, and an acuity
of multiple people in the care facility other than the person,
[2] receiving at the controller a second input signal
corresponding to a first physiological characteristic of the
person supported on the person-support structure, the person-
support structure comprising a bed frame having a mattress
support deck with a plurality of movable sections and a
mattress supported by the deck, wherein the second input signal
corresponding to the first physiological characteristic of the
person is output by a first sensor that is spaced above the
mattress support deck and that senses the first physiological
characteristic of the person through at least a portion of the
mattress,
[3] receiving at the controller a third input signal
corresponding to a second physiological characteristic of the
person supported on the person-support structure, wherein the
third input signal corresponding to the second physiological
characteristic of the person is output by a second sensor that
contacts the person,
[4] calculating using the controller a condition score as a
function of the first input signal and the first and second
physiological characteristics of the person supported on the
person-support structure, and
[5] alerting using the controller a caregiver if the
condition score is greater than a predetermined threshold,
wherein at least one of the first or second physiological
characteristics and the predetermined threshold is scaled as a
function of the first input signal, wherein the predetermined
threshold is modified by the controller in response to a position
of at least a portion of the person-support structure being
changed.
Appeal Br. 14–15 (Claims Appendix).
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1–6 and 8–10 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.
Appeal 2018-006205
Application 14/493,475

4
I. PRINCIPLES OF LAW
A. Section 101
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 U.S. 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 Court’s two-part 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 whether the claim recites an abstract idea. 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
that recite abstract ideas, but are nonetheless 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,
Appeal 2018-006205
Application 14/493,475

5
making waterproof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 182
n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267–68 (1854))); and
manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69 (citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94
U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second part
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
abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is
more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].’” Id.
(alterations in original) (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.
B. USPTO Section 101 Guidance
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)
(“2019 Revised Guidance”).2 “All USPTO personnel are, as a matter of

2 The Office issued further guidance on October 17, 2019. 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.p
df).
Appeal 2018-006205
Application 14/493,475

6
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
(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:
(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 (“Step 2B”).

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 2018-006205
Application 14/493,475

7
2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–56.
II. ANALYSIS
Applying the Revised Guidance to the facts on this record, we find
that claims 1–6 and 8–10 are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.
Claim 1 is directed to a method of predicting the onset of an adverse
condition of a person. Following the first step of the Mayo/Alice analysis,
we find that the claim is directed to a “process,” and therefore falls into one
of the broad statutory categories of patent-eligible subject matter under 35
U.S.C. § 101. We thus proceed to Step 2A, Prong One, of the Eligibility
Guidance.
A. Guidance Step 2A, Prong 1
The Revised Guidance instructs us first to determine whether any
judicial exception to patent eligibility is recited in the claim. The Revised
Guidance identifies three judicially-excepted groupings identified by the
courts as abstract ideas: (1) mathematical concepts, (2) certain methods of
organizing human activity such as fundamental economic practices, and (3)
mental processes.
The Examiner finds that the claims “recite the judicial exception that
is the abstract idea of a mathematical relationship including comparing new
and stored information and using rules to identify options.” Final Act. 3.
We agree with the Examiner that claim 1 recites patent-ineligible
subject matter. More specifically, claim 1, reproduced above, recites the
following steps: [4] “calculating . . . a condition score as a function of the
first input signal and the first and second physiological characteristics,”. . .
and [5] “alerting . . . a caregiver if the condition score is greater than a
Appeal 2018-006205
Application 14/493,475

8
predetermined threshold . . .” Appeal Br. 15. Although a mathematical
formula is not recited, per se, in claim 1, under the broadest reasonable
interpretation, limitations [4] and [5] are calculations and therefore based on
mathematical concepts that can be performed in the mind or through the aid
of paper and pencil and, thus, recite mental processes. See CyberSource
Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372–73 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(determining that a claim whose “steps can be performed in the human mind,
or by a human using a pen and paper” is directed to an unpatentable mental
process).
Accordingly, we conclude that the above-identified limitations of
claim 1 recite the judicial exception of mental processes.
B. Guidance Step 2A, Prong 2
Having determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, we next
consider whether the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical
application. “[I]ntegration into a practical application” requires that the
claim recite an additional element or a combination of elements, that when
considered individually or in combination, “apply, rely on, or use the
judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the
judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed
to monopolize the judicial exception.” Guidance at 54.
Here, there is no practical integration of the abstract idea. Other than
the limitations directed to the abstract idea, discussed above, the remaining
steps [1] through [3] are directed to “receiving” “a first input signal,” “a
second input signal,” and a “third input signal.” Appeal Br. 14. These are
data collection steps that do not amount to significantly more than the
Appeal 2018-006205
Application 14/493,475

9
abstract idea because they are insignificant pre-solution activities. See
Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79 (quoting Flook, 437 U.S. at 590) (“Purely
‘conventional or obvious’ ‘[pre]-solution activity’ is normally not sufficient
to transform an unpatentable law of nature into a patent-eligible application
of such a law”); see also Guidance, 55, n.31.
Furthermore, claim 1 does not require that anything be done with the
information generated by the claimed method. The output of the final step,
i.e., “alerting…a caregiver if the condition score is greater than a
predetermined threshold…” simply provides information to the user.
Although the claim also recites “wherein the predetermined threshold is
modified…in response to a position of at least a portion of the person-
support structure being changed,” the claim language does not clearly
require that the caregiver cause the change in position of the person-support
structure. Unlike the claim in Vanda that required the administration of a
treatment in response to a diagnostic determination, rejected claim 1 does
not necessarily require that anything be done with the information provided
to the caregiver. See Vanda Pharm. Inc. v. West-Ward Pharm. Int’l Ltd.,
887 F.3d 1117, 1133–36 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Indeed, we conclude that claim 1
is more similar to the claims held ineligible in Mayo because it merely
gathers data for caregivers “from which they may draw an inference.” See
566 U.S. at 79–80.
Appellant argues that claim 1 recites “specific, narrow structures that
limit the applicability of claim 1 to a small subset of patient-support
structures.” Appeal Br. 8. Appellant further contends that “[c]laim 1 of the
present application does not set forth a ‘building block’ of human ingenuity,
but instead recites something substantially more (e.g. bed frame, mattress,
Appeal 2018-006205
Application 14/493,475

10
first and second sensors at particular locations, and particular, narrow
controller functions).” Id. at 9 (citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354). According
to Appellant, “[r]eciting a combination of structures from which multiple
signals are obtained provides meaningful limitations that constrain the scope
of the claims of the present application.” Reply Br. 4.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Appellant has not
provided adequate evidence of a technical solution to a technical problem
that results in an improvement to the technology of sensors in a person-
support structure. Rather, claim 1 relies upon gathering data from different
sources and using that data to calculate a condition score and then alerting
the controller if the condition score is greater than a predetermined
threshold. Claim 1 can be distinguished from the patent eligible claims in
Thales Visionix, Inc. v. U.S., 850 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2017). In Thales,
the court addressed the eligibility of claims “for tracking the motion of an
object relative to a moving reference frame” which comprised inertial
sensors. Id. at 1344. The court found that the claims were eligible
under § 101 because they “are directed to systems and methods that use
inertial sensors in a non-conventional manner to reduce errors in measuring
the relative position and orientation of a moving object on a moving
reference frame.” Id. at 1348–49. In Thales, the improvement was found to
be in the placement of inertial sensors on a moving platform and the
reference frame in which the gravitational field is measured. Id. at 1345. In
contrast, Appellant has not established that the recited person-support
structures and sensors are used in a non-generic manner to achieve the stated
purpose of delivering signals to a controller.
Appeal 2018-006205
Application 14/493,475

11
Therefore, on this record, we conclude that the ineligible subject
matter in Appellant’s claim 1 is not integrated into a practical application.
C. Guidance Step 2B
Having determined that the judicial exception is not integrated into a
practical application, we next evaluate the additional elements individually
and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept,
such as a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not well-
understood, routine, conventional 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.
See 84 Fed. Reg. 51.
Appellant argues that claim 1 adds significantly more than the abstract
idea identified by the Examiner and that the Examiner “does not seem to
address whether a controller of a patient support structure receiving the three
particular signals that claim 1 requires it to receive is also well-understood,
routine and conventional but instead, dismisses the particular requirements
for the signals by stating that they are each known individually.” Reply Br.
6. Appellant further asserts that:
the examiner does not state that the same controller receiving
these particular three signals is well-understood, routine or
conventional, let alone that a controller of a patient support
structure having the claimed structure is well-understood,
routine or conventional. Accordingly, the examiner has not
considered all of the claim elements (i.e., the claim “as a
whole”) in making the “significantly more” analysis under step
2B of the Alice framework.
Id. at 6–7.
Appellant also contends that:
Appeal 2018-006205
Application 14/493,475

12
the two pieces of prior art cited by the examiner as purportedly
demonstrating the well-understood, routine, and conventional
nature of the structural aspects of claim 1 do not disclose the
full extent of what is actually claimed. Neither of those
references disclose a controller of a patient-support structure
that receive two of the required three signals of claim 1, let
alone also disclosing all three claimed signals originating from
the three specifically recited sources for the signals.
Id. at 8–9.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. The additional steps
[1] through [3] are directed to “receiving,” “a first input signal,” “a second
input signal,” and a “third input signal.” The second input signal is received
from a first sensor that is spaced above the mattress support deck on the
person-support structure and the third input signal is received from a second
sensor that contacts the person. These additional limitations are
conventional as demonstrated by Riley4 and Collins,5 cited by the Examiner.
For example, we agree with the Examiner that
Riley . . . discloses a person-support structure comprising a bed
frame and a mattress support deck with a plurality of moving
sections and a mattress supported by the deck and a sensor
spaced above the mattress support deck that sense a
physiological characteristic of the person through the mattress .
. . and that the software to promote an alert for the bed includes
the software disclosed in Collins.
Ans. 5 (citing Riley ¶¶ 7, 15, 18, 23–26, 33, 56–62, 87). We also agree with
the Examiner that Collins “discloses that the system also receives data from
sensors that are in contact with the person on the person support structure.”
Id. (citing Collins 4:4–17, 11:1–37, 19:21–31, 24:35–65, 28:39–58).

4 Riley et al., US 2010/0101022 A1, published Apr. 29, 2010 (“Riley”).
5 Collins, Jr. et al., US 7,319,386 B2, issued Jan. 15, 2008 (“Collins”).
Appeal 2018-006205
Application 14/493,475

13
Furthermore, we find that Collins discloses a hospital network which
includes a computer device that receives data from a bed (i.e., person-
support structure) and from one or more patient monitoring devices and that
communicates alarm conditions based on alarm condition thresholds.
Collins, Fig. 17, 6:48–54. Therefore, Collins teaches a computer device that
receives at least three input signals. Similarly, Riley recites a processor
located inside a patient support surface that is electrically coupled to first
and second sensing devices, thereby, receiving inputs from these two
sensing devices. The Specification describes the controller of the invention
as a controller or processor. Spec. ¶ 52. Therefore, there does not appear to
be anything unconventional about a controller receiving input signals from
multiple sensing devices in a person-support structure or from other sources.
We find that Appellant did not provide adequate evidence that the
claims require anything other than the use of conventional and well-
understood techniques and equipment to gather and process data and provide
an alert if the condition score is greater than a predetermined threshold.
Accordingly, the preponderance of evidence of record supports the
Examiner’s finding that Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to patent-
ineligible subject matter. The rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is
affirmed. Dependent claims 2–6 and 8–10 are not separately argued and fall
with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons described herein and those already of record, we
affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–6 and 8–10.
Appeal 2018-006205
Application 14/493,475

14
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–6, 8–10 101 Eligibility 1–6, 8–10

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED