Scott A. Mangiacotti

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 29, 2019

14424699 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 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.
14/424,699 02/27/2015 Scott A. Mangiacotti 264626-9X1274(1026-1WOUS) 5675
123162 7590 07/29/2019
GE Healthcare - Grogan, Tuccillo & Vanderleeden LL
1350 Main Street, 5th Floor
Springfield, MA 01103
EXAMINER
TURK, NEIL N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1798
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/29/2019 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):
docket@gtv-ip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SCOTT A. MANGIACOTTI
____________

Appeal 2018-009175
Application 14/424,699
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, and
JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.

INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 requests our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s decision to finally reject claims 1–212. We have jurisdiction
over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 Appellant is the applicant, GE Healthcare Bio-Sciences Corp., which,
according to the Appeal Brief, is the real party in interest. Appeal Brief filed
April 6, 2018 (“App. Br.”), 2.
2 Claim 22 stands withdrawn from consideration. Final Office Action
entered November 6, 2017 (“Final Act.”), 1.
Appeal 2018-009175
Application 14/424,699

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention is generally directed to an apparatus and
method for implementing flexible bioreactor control systems. Spec. Abst.
Claim 1 illustrates the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below
with subject matter of particular relevance in the present appeal italicized:
1. An apparatus for configuring a bioreactor control system
comprising:
a memory device that stores a process task object that
defines a process task to be executed by a first process control
device of the bioreactor control system, the first process control
device having an input mapped to an output of a second process
control device of the bioreactor control system, the process task
object including a map value that identifies a source location for
an input value of the process task object, the input value
defined by a third process control device of the bioreactor
control system;
a hardware abstractor that includes a data bus for
connecting to the first, second, and third process control
devices; and
a processor coupled to the memory device and the
hardware abstractor and configured to:
determine whether the map value is a valid map
value;
decode the map value to identify the source
location;
pull a value from the source location via the
hardware abstractor to update the input value; and
configure the process task to be executed with the
input value via the first process control device via the
hardware abstractor such that the input of the first
process control device is mapped to an output of the third
process control device; and
wherein the process task defines an action for
producing a product,
the first process control device preforms the action
defined by the process task, and
Appeal 2018-009175
Application 14/424,699

3
the first, second, and third process control devices
are each one of a bioreactor, a pump, a flow control
device, a valve, an agitator, a ph sensor, a temperature
sensor, a dissolved oxygen sensor, a pressure gauge, a
concentration gauge, and a flow meter.

App. Br. 16–17 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added).
The Examiner maintains the following rejections in the Examiner’s
Answer entered July 27, 2018 (“Ans.”):
I. Claims 1–21 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial
exception without significantly more; and
II. Claims 1–21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by West
(US 2010/0099172 Al, published April 22, 2010).
DISCUSSION
Upon consideration of the evidence relied upon in this appeal and
each of Appellant’s contentions, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1–21 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and rejection of claims 1–21 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b), for the reasons set forth in the Appeal Brief and below.
I. Rejection of Claims 1–21 Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
35 U.S.C. § 101 states 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.” According to the Supreme
Court, “[p]henomena of nature, though just discovered, mental processes,
and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic
tools of scientific and technological work.” Mayo Collaborative Servs. v.
Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 70–72 (2012) (quoting Diamond v.
Appeal 2018-009175
Application 14/424,699

4
Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 185 (1981) (quoting Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S.
63, 67 (1972)). “And monopolization of those tools through the grant of a
patent might tend to impede innovation more than it would tend to promote
it.” Id.
As stated in Alice:
Accordingly, in applying the § 101 exception, we must
distinguish between patents that claim the building blocks of
human ingenuity and those that integrate the building blocks
into something more, thereby transforming them into a patent-
eligible invention. The former would risk disproportionately
tying up the use of the underlying ideas and are therefore
ineligible for patent protection. The latter pose no comparable
risk of pre-emption, and therefore remain eligible for the
monopoly granted under our patent laws.
Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217 (2014) (internal quotations
and citations to Mayo omitted). In Alice, the Court extended a framework
that had been used in Mayo for distinguishing claims pre-empting laws of
nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from claims amounting to
patent-eligible applications of those concepts. As stated in Alice:
First, we determine whether the claims at issue are directed to
one of those patent-ineligible concepts. If so, we then ask, what
else is there in the claims before us? To answer that question,
we consider the elements of each claim both individually and as
an ordered combination to determine whether the additional
elements transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible
application. We have described step two of this analysis as a
search for an “inventive concept”—i.e., an element or
combination of elements that is sufficient to ensure that the
patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent
upon the ineligible concept itself.
Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (internal quotations and citations omitted).
Appeal 2018-009175
Application 14/424,699

5
The Examiner determines that claims 1–21 as a whole are drawn to
the abstract concept of storing data in a memory and recognizing certain
stored data so as to facilitate execution of a process task. Final Act. 5. The
Examiner determines that the claims “do not include additional elements that
are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception”
because “the included machine is merely drawn to a general processor (i.e.
computer) for assessing data,” the steps of independent claims 1, 8, and 15
that “are drawn to storing data in a memory, collecting data and recognizing
certain data within the collected data . . . amount to ‘extra solution activity’
and mere data gathering and assessment thereof,” the recited first, second,
and third process control devices relate to “potential intended use for the
data (‘process task object’) stored in the memory device (‘to be executed’),”
and the recited hardware abstractor “is merely drawn to data reception and
data conversion.” Final Act. 6–7.
Appellant argues that “[s]imilar to Enfish3, the present invention
represents an improvement in the way a computerized system operates”
because it “provides for flexible mappings of physical connections between
various control devices of a bioreactor control system, whereas traditional
bioreactor systems have predefined device mappings,” which “often require
a cumbersome process of manually editing/re-writing source code in order to
change the configuration of such traditional systems.” App. Br. 8–9; Reply
Br. 5.
Appellant’s arguments are persuasive of reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection for reasons that follow.

3 Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Appeal 2018-009175
Application 14/424,699

6
The USPTO recently published revised guidance on the application of
§ 101. 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“2019 Guidance”). Under the 2019 Guidance, we
first look to whether a claim recites:
(Step 2A, Prong 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
(Step 2A, Prong 2) additional elements that integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application (see MPEP
§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)).
2019 Guidance 54–55. Only if a claim: (1) recites a judicial exception; and
(2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then
look to whether the claim:
(Step 2B) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception
that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the
field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or simply appends well-
understood, routine, conventional activities previously
known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality,
to the judicial exception.
2019 Guidance 56–57.
Independent claim 1 recites that the claimed apparatus for configuring
a bioreactor control system includes “a memory device that stores a process
task object . . . including a map value that identifies a source location for an
input value of the process task object,” a “first process control device having
an input mapped to an output of a second process control device of the
Appeal 2018-009175
Application 14/424,699

7
bioreactor control system,” and “a processor . . . configured to . . . pull a
value from the source location via the hardware abstractor to update the
input value . . . such that the input of the first process control device is
mapped to an output of the third process control device” (emphasis added).
Independent claim 8 recites that the claimed method for configuring a
bioreactor control system includes steps involving “a map value included in
a process task object stored in a memory device . . . identifying a source
location for an input value of the process task object,” a “first process
control device having an input mapped to an output of a second process
control device of the bioreactor control system,” and a processor that pulls
“a value from the source location to update the input value of the process
task object . . . such that the input of the first process control device is
mapped to an output of the third process control device” (emphasis added).
Independent claim 15 recites that the claimed non-transitory computer
readable medium has instructions that cause a processor of an apparatus for
configuring a bioreactor control system to determine whether a map value
that identifies a source location for an input value of a process task object is
a valid map value, “decode the map value to identify the source location of a
first input of the process task object; [and] pull a value from the source
location to update the input value of the process task object” for “a first
process control device having an input mapped to an output of a second
process control device,” “such that the input of the first process control
device is mapped to an output of the third process control device” (emphasis
added).
We look to the Specification to inform our understanding of these
elements of claims 1, 8, and 15.
Appeal 2018-009175
Application 14/424,699

8
The Specification explains that conventional bioreactor control
systems include predefined templates or device mappings that determine
how control devices interact with each other, such as a template that maps a
first dissolved oxygen sensor to both an air pump and an oxygen pump.
Spec. 6, ll. 7–14. The Specification indicates, however, that connecting the
dissolved oxygen sensor to a device that is not included in the template, such
as a glucose feed pump, is not possible without custom control system
programming that involves re-writing the source code for the control system
device templates. Id. at 6, ll. 14–21. In contrast to these conventional
control systems that include predefined device mappings, the Specification
explains that the claimed apparatus, method, and non-transitory computer
readable medium enable flexible control system configurations by allowing
a user to map the output of any control device to the input of any other
control device, without having to rewrite or modify source code. Id. at 6, l.
23–pg. 7, l. 11; 8, ll. 4–6.
More specifically, as the Specification explains, the claimed invention
defines process tasks (such as converting a temperature from Celsius to
Fahrenheit) with corresponding process task objects, which include
information needed by a given process control device to execute the
corresponding process task (such as retrieving the temperature in Celsius
from a temperature sensor, multiplying the temperature by 9/5, adding 32 to
the product). Spec. 7, ll. 12–14; 18, ll. 16–22. But unlike prior art systems,
as the Specification explains, the inventive process task objects also include
map values for pulling respective input value(s) from a source location (such
as a temperature sensor) to the process task object. Id. at 7, ll. 12–24; 17, l.
23–18, l. 3. As a result, input connections to a given process control device
Appeal 2018-009175
Application 14/424,699

9
(such as an exhaust heater) are not limited only to predetermined mappings
to another process control device (such as a temperature sensor). Id. at 16, l.
21–17, l. 7. Consequently, unlike conventional systems in which device
configurations are limited based on the current mappings included in the
control device templates, the Specification explains that the processor used
in claimed apparatus, method, and non-transitory computer readable medium
pulls input values for process control devices from locations determined by
input map values, which permits the output of any process control device to
be connected as an input to any other process control device. Id. at 7, ll. 12–
24; 8, ll. 4–7. Significantly, as the Specification indicates, this enables
reconfiguration of the control system by changing input map values rather
than the source code. Id.
Thus, as Appellant argues, the apparatus, method, and non-transitory
computer readable medium for configuring a bioreactor control system
recited in claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively, are similar to the claimed subject
matter in Enfish, because they function differently from, and improve upon,
conventional bioreactor control systems by including a processor configured
to update the input value of a process control device by pulling an updated
input value from a source location identified by a map value. As the
Specification explains, this functionality represents an improvement in the
way a computerized bioreactor control system operates.
More specifically, the claims in Enfish recited a self-referential table,
which, the court explained, “is a specific type of data structure designed to
improve the way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory.” Id. at
1339. The court determined in Enfish that the recited self-referential table
was “directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality,” rather
Appeal 2018-009175
Application 14/424,699

10
than an abstract idea, in view of the specification’s disclosure that the self-
referential table “functions differently than conventional database structures”
and achieves benefits over conventional databases, “such as increased
flexibility.” Id. at 1337–1339.
Similar to the self-referential table claimed in Enfish, the processor of
the bioreactor control system recited in claims 1, 8, and 15 is configured to
update an input value for a process control device by pulling a new input
value for the device from a source location identified by a map value. This
functionality increases the flexibility of the recited bioreactor control system
relative to conventional bioreactor control systems, which require changes to
source code to make such input value updates, as explained in the
Specification. Spec. 6, ll. 8–22; 8, ll. 4–11. Accordingly, like the claims in
Enfish, claims 1, 8, and 15 “are directed to an improvement in the
functioning of a computer.” Id. at. 1338.
Thus, irrespective of whether claims 1, 8, and 15 recite an abstract
idea as the Examiner asserts, the claims integrate any such abstract idea into
a practical application by improving the functioning of a computer. We,
therefore, determine under step 2A, Prong 2 of the 2019 Guidance that
claims 1, 8, and 15 are not directed to an abstract idea; consequently, we
need not consider step 2B of the 2019 Guidance.
We do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1,
8, and 15, as well as claims 2–7, 9–14, and 16–21, which each depend from
either claim 1, 8, or 15, under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
II. Rejection of Claims 1–21 Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
The Examiner finds that West discloses an integrated bioreactor
monitoring and control system including a processor coupled to a memory
Appeal 2018-009175
Application 14/424,699

11
adapted to determine whether a map value is valid, and to decode the map
value so as to update the input value to a process task object within the
bioreactor system, to facilitate execution of a process task with the input
value. Final Act. 8 (citing West Abst. ¶¶ 8–13, 30–41; Figs. 1, 2, 5, 6, and
8). The Examiner finds that West discloses that the integrated bioreactor
monitoring and control system further includes a hardware abstractor that
includes a databus. Final Act. 8 (citing “items 135, 140, 145” of Figs. 1, 2,
and 5).
As Appellant argues, however, the Examiner does not identify with
particularity any disclosure in West of changing the input mapping of a first
process control device from the output of a second control device, to the
output of a third process control device, as required by claims 1, 8, and 15
(discussed above). App. Br. 12–13. As Appellant also argues, the Examiner
does not identify any disclosure in West of a hardware abstractor as recited
in claims 1, 8, and 15. App. Br. 13–14.
West discloses a system for controlling a bioreactor process
comprising a controller configured to receive information related to a
condition in a bioreactor from a monitoring system of a utility tower. West
¶ 9; Fig. 1. West discloses that the monitoring system of the utility tower
transmits information to the controller via a communication system, and the
controller determines a control signal based on the information received
from the monitoring system, and sends a signal over the communication
system to the utility tower, which changes a condition in the bioreactor
based on the control signal. Id.
We find no disclosure in the portions of West cited by the Examiner
of “a memory device that stores a process task object . . . including a map
Appeal 2018-009175
Application 14/424,699

12
value that identifies a source location for an input value of the process task
object,” a “first process control device having an input mapped to an output
of a second process control device of the bioreactor control system,” and “a
processor . . . configured to . . . pull a value from the source location via the
hardware abstractor to update the input value . . . such that the input of the
first process control device is mapped to an output of the third process
control device,” as required by claim 1. As set forth above, independent
claims 8 and 15 include similar limitations.
Furthermore, although the Examiner asserts that network connections
135, 140, and 145 disclosed in West correspond to a hardware abstractor that
includes a databus for connecting first, second, and third process control
devices as recited in claims 1, 8, and 15, West discloses that network
connections or buses 135, 140, 145 provide communication channels
between the utility tower and the controller. West ¶ 38; Fig. 1. As
Appellant points out, a utility tower is not a “process control device” as
recited in claims 1, 8, and 154. App. Br. 13–14. Thus, network connections
or buses 135, 140, 145 disclosed in West connect to the utility tower, rather
than first, second, and third process control devices, as required by claims 1,
8, and 15.
Therefore, on the record before us, the Examiner does not provide a
sufficient factual basis to establish that West discloses an apparatus, method,
and non-transitory computer readable medium having the features recited in
claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively. We accordingly do not sustain the

4 Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite that “the first, second, and third process control
devices are each one of a bioreactor, a pump, a flow control device, a valve,
an agitator, a ph sensor, a temperature sensor, a dissolved oxygen sensor, a
pressure gauge, a concentration gauge, and a flow meter.”
Appeal 2018-009175
Application 14/424,699

13
Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 8, and 15, nor the rejection of
claims 2–7, 9–14, and 16–21, which each depend from either claim 1, 8, or
15, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101, and rejection of claims 1–21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
REVERSED