Loading...
Please wait, while we are loading the content...
Similar Documents
United States Patent and Trademark Office before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
| Content Provider | Semantic Scholar |
|---|---|
| Author | Carr, Ryan |
| Copyright Year | 2019 |
| Abstract | ideas may include, but are not limited to, fundamental economic practices, methods of organizing human activities, and mathematical formulas or relationships. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–21. Under this guidance, we must therefore ensure at step one that we articulate what the claims are directed to with enough specificity to ensure the step one inquiry is meaningful. Id. at 217 (“[W]e tread carefully in construing this exclusionary principle lest it swallow all of patent law.”). 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 patenteligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (citation 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 Revised Guidance The PTO recently published revised guidance in the Federal Register concerning the application of § 101. 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Appeal 2018-004611 Application 14/075,773 8 Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (January 7, 2019) (hereinafter “Revised Guidance”) (https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-0107/pdf/2018-28282.pdf). Under the Revised 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);5 and (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see Manual for Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)).6 See Revised Guidance 52–53. 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.7 See Revised Guidance 56. 5 Referred to as “Revised Step 2A, Prong 1” in the Revised Guidance (hereinafter “Step 2A(i)”). 6 Referred to as “Revised Step 2A, Prong 2” in the Revised Guidance (hereinafter “Step 2A(ii)”). 7 Items (3) and (4) continue to be collectively referred to as “Step 2B” of the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Appeal 2018-004611 Application 14/075,773 9 Step 2A(i) – Abstract Idea Informed by our judicial precedent, the Revised Guidance extracts and synthesizes key concepts identified by the courts as abstract ideas to explain that the abstract idea exception includes the following groupings of subject matter, when recited as such in a claim limitation: (a) Mathematical concepts—mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; (b) Certain methods of organizing human activity — fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and (c) Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Revised Guidance 52 (footnotes omitted). Under the Revised Guidance, if the claim does not recite a judicial exception (a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or subject matter within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas above), then the claim is patenteligible at Step 2A(i). This determination concludes the eligibility analysis, except in situations identified in the Revised Guidance.8 8 In the rare circumstance in which an examiner believes a claim limitation that does not fall within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas should nonetheless be treated as reciting an abstract idea, the procedure described in of the Guidance for analyzing the claim should be followed. See Revised Guidance, Section III.C. Appeal 2018-004611 Application 14/075,773 10 However, if the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated above, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis for a practical application of the judicial exception in Step 2A(ii). Step 2A(ii) – Practical Application If a claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A(i), we determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception in Step 2A(ii) by: (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. The seven identified “practical application” sections of the MPEP,9 cited in the Revised Guidance under Step 2A(ii), are: (1) MPEP § 2106.05(a) Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or To Any Other Technology or Technical Field (2) MPEP § 2106.05(b) Particular Machine (3) MPEP § 2106.05(c) Particular Transformation (4) MPEP § 2106.05(e) Other Meaningful Limitations (5) MPEP § 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception 9 See MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h). Citations to the MPEP herein refer to revision [R-08.2017]. Sections 2106.05(a), (b), (c), and (e) are indicative of integration into a practical application, while §§ 2106.05(f), (g), and (h) relate to limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Appeal 2018-004611 Application 14/075,773 11 (6) MPEP § 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (7) MPEP § 2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment See Revised Guidance 55. If the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application as determined under one or more of the MPEP sections cited above, then the claim is not directed to the judicial exception, and the patenteligibility inquiry ends. See Revised Guidance 54. If not, then analysis proceeds to Step 2B. Step 2B – “Inventive Concept” or “Significantly More” Under our reviewing courts’ precedent, it is possible that a claim that does not “integrate” a recited judicial exception under Step 2A(ii) is nonetheless patent eligible. For example, the claim may recite additional elements that render the claim patent eligible even though one or more claim elements may recite a judicial exception.10 The Federal Circuit has held claims eligible at the second step of the Alice/Mayo test (USPTO Step 2B) because the additional elements recited in the claims provided “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception (e.g., because the additional elements were unconventional in combination).11 Therefore, if a claim has been determined to be directed to a judicial exception under Revised Step 2A, we must also evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive 10 See, e.g., Diehr, 450 U.S. at 187. 11 See, e.g., Amdocs (Israel), Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1300, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2016); BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349–52 (Fed. Cir. 2016); DDR Holdings v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257–59 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Appeal 2018-004611 Application 14/075,773 12 concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).12 Under the Revised Guidance, we must consider in Step 2B whether an additional element or combination of elements: (1) “Adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present;” or (2) “simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.” See Revised Guidance, Section III.B.13 In the Step 2B analysis, an additional element (or combination of elements) is not well-understood, routine or conventional unless the 12 The patent eligibility inquiry may contain underlying issues of fact. Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In particular, “[t]he question of whether a claim element or combination of elements is well-understood, routine and conventional to a skilled artisan in the relevant field is a question of fact.” Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018). 13 In accordance with existing Step 2B guidance, an Examiner’s finding that an additional element (or combination of elements) is well understood, routine, conventional activity must be supported with at least one of the four specific types of evidence required by the USPTO Berkheimer Memorandum, as shown above. For more information concerning evaluation of well-understood, routine, conventional activity, see MPEP § 2106.05(d), as modified by the USPTO Berkheimer Memorandum (USPTO Commissioner for Patents Memorandum dated Apr. 19, 2018, “Changes in Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.)” (hereinafte |
| File Format | PDF HTM / HTML |
| Alternate Webpage(s) | https://e-foia.uspto.gov/Foia/RetrievePdf?flNm=fd2018004611-11-20-2019-0&system=BPAI |
| Language | English |
| Access Restriction | Open |
| Content Type | Text |
| Resource Type | Patent |
