submission of comments regarding the july 2015 update to the interim guidance … · ·...
Post on 25-May-2018
213 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
1
SUBMISSIONOFCOMMENTSREGARDINGTHEJULY2015UPDATE
TOTHEINTERIMGUIDANCEONPATENTSUBJECTMATTERELIGIBILITY
DavidStein,Esq.
October28,2015
ThefollowingcommentsaresubmittedinresponsetotheFederalRegister
noticedatedJuly30,2015,entitled“July2015UpdateonSubjectMatterEligibility”
(DocumentCitation:80FR45429;Agency/DocketNumberPTO-P-2015-0034).
Thesecommentsaresolelypersonaltotheauthor,anddonotnecessarilyreflect
theviewsofanylawfirm,organization,orclientwithwhichtheauthorisaffiliated.
I. INTRODUCTION
Thedeterminationofpatent-eligibilityofclaimedsubjectmatterhasbeenin
confusionatleastsincetheGottschalkv.Bensondecisionof1972,buthasbecomeeven
moreperplexingsincetheissuanceoftheAlicedecision.Despite16monthsofdecisions
atalllevelsofreviewthatapplythereinterpretationof§101underAlicetoclaimed
inventions,thepatentcommunitycontinuestograpplewiththemeaning,scope,and
processofthisdecision,anditsapplicationtopendingandissuedpatents.
TheU.S.Patent&TrademarkOfficebearsthebruntofthistask.First,courts
havetheluxuryofselectivelyapplyingAlicetocaselaw(suchaschoosingnottogrant
certiorariorinstituteaninterpartesreview;designatinganopinionasnon-precedential
orunpublished;orevenchoosingnottoissueanopinionatall,astheFederalCircuithas
recentlydoneinmanyinstances),butexaminersarecompelledtomakea§101
determinationineveryapplication.Second,examiners’decisionsaresubjecttoan
extensivereviewprocess–includingtheexaminer’ssupervisor;theartunitand
technologycenterdirectors;theOfficeofPatentQualityAssurance(OPQA);thePTAB;
variousdistrictcourts;theFederalCircuit;andpotentiallyeventheSupremeCourt–and
suchreviewisoftendenovoandrarelydifferentialtotheexaminer’sfindings.
2
Byextension,theUSPTOOfficeofPatentLegalAdministrationfacesaformidable
challengeinissuinglegalmemorandatoguideexaminersinreaching§101
determinationsthatarebothbroadlyapplicabletotheUSPTO’scaseload,andlikelyto
withstandmultipleroundsofadministrativeandjudicialreview.Thischallengeis
exacerbatedbythelargevolumeofcourtdecisionsfindingpatentclaimsineligible
under35U.S.C.§101,andcomparativelyfewcasesfindingeligiblepatentclaims.
TheOPLAhasrisentothechallengebyissuingasetofupdatestotheinitial
versionoftheInterimGuidancethatattempttoprovideacoherentsummaryofthelaw,
toreconcileinconsistencies,andtoprovidematerialthatexaminersmayciteinsupport
ofvarious§101determinations.Inresponsetoapreviousroundofpubliccomments,
theOPLAissuedaJuly2015UpdatetotheInterimGuidancethatincludes“new
examplesthatareillustrativeofmajorthemesfromthecomments;acomprehensive
indexofexamples;andadiscussionofselectedeligibilitycasesfromtheSupremeCourt
andtheU.S.CourtofAppealsfortheFederalCircuit.”
Theseobjectivesmighthavebeenlimitedbythediscouragingfactthatinthe
preceding14monthssinceAlice,theSupremeCourtandFederalCircuithavetogether
identifiedexactlyonepatentpresentingpatent-eligibleclaims(DDRHoldings,LLCv.
Hotels.com),whileinvalidatingclaimsinahostofpatentsreviewedin14othercases.To
itscredit,theOPLAdidnotrestricttheInterimGuidancetoacompilationofsuchcourt
opinions,butincludedmaterialregardingunaddressedareasof§101,suchasexamples
ofpatent-eligiblesubjectmatter,anda“streamlined”analysisofpatent-eligibilityfor
subjectmatterthatclearsthe§101hurdlebyasignificantmargin.
ThefollowingsubmissionisresponsivetotheUSPTO’ssolicitationofpublic
commentsregardingthecurrentstateoftheInterimGuidance,andinparticulartheJuly
2015Update.Thissubmissionbeginswithobservationsoftrendsintheapplicationof§
101topendingandissuedpatents.Theseobservationsformthebasisforasetof
recommendationsforfurtherrefinementoftheInterimGuidancethatmayfoster
additionalprogressintheapplicationof35U.S.C.§101tothecaseloadandpatent-
eligibilitydecisionsoftheexaminingcorps.
3
II. OBSERVATIONSABOUTTHECURRENTAPPLICATIONOF35U.S.C.§101
Observation#1:35U.S.C.§101challengesofissuedpatentsarepervasiveinpatent
reviewandassertion.
Patent-eligibilityhasbecomeanendemicissueinpatentdisputes–totheextent
thatduringtheoralargumentsforAmdocsv.Openet,JudgePlagercharacterized§101
challengesas“aplagueonthepatentsystemnowadays…almosteveryothercase
comesinona101basis.”
Giventheseconditions,itcanbeexpectedthatvirtuallyeveryissuedpatentthat
apatenteeseekstoassertwillfacea§101challenge.Evenpatentsthatarenotasserted
under§101maybespontaneouslychallengedviapost-grantreview,inter-partes
review,orcoveredbusinessmethod(CBM)review.Theresolutionofthesechallenges
willoftenincludeareviewoftheexaminer’s§101analysis–thusplacingevery
examiner’sdecisiontoallowapatentintheharshspotlightof§101review.
Itisthereforeunsurprisingthat§101rejectionsaresimilarlycommonatthe
USPTO,withsomeartunitsinTechnologyCenter3600issuing§101rejectionsinover
90%ofpendingpatentapplications.
4
Observation#2:§101rejectionsarebeingover-appliedforavarietyofreasons.
Duringthemid-2000’s,USPTOadministrationsoughttopromote“patent
quality”byencouragingtheexaminingcorpstoreduceallowancerates.1Thispolicy
catastrophicallyimpactedtheoperationoftheUSPTO,asexaminerswerecompelled(or
permitted)toissuemanyrejectionswithoutasufficientlegalbasis.Inadditionto
incurringaheavytolluponthebacklogoftheexaminingcorps2andthePTAB3,these
policiesreducedUSPTOemployeemorale,unreasonablywithheldpatentrights,and
inflatingprosecutioncosts.Thiscrisisreachedsuchanimbalancethatevenexaminers
bemoanedthepublicappearanceoftheUSPTOasthe“PatentRejectionOffice.”4
DirectorKapposconsideredthiscrisissuchahighprioritythatthreeweeksafter
hisappointment,heissuedthefollowingstatementtotheexaminingcorps(emphasisin
original)5:
Onthesubjectofquality,therehasbeenspeculationintheIPcommunity
thatexaminersarebeingencouragedtorejectapplicationsbecausea
lowerallowancerateequalshigherquality.Let'sbeclear:patentquality
doesnotequalrejection.Insomecasesthisrequiresustorejectallthe
claimswhennopatentablesubjectmatterhasbeenpresented.Itisour
dutytobecandidwiththeapplicantandprotecttheinterestsofthe
public.Inothercasesthismeansgrantingbroadclaimswhenthey
presentallowablesubjectmatter.Inallcasesitmeansengagingwiththe
applicanttogettotherealissuesefficiently—whatweallknowas
compactprosecution.
1 http://www.patenthawk.com/blog/2008/03/the_quality_patent.html 2 http://patentlyo.com/patent/2014/11/uspto-backlog.html 3 http://www.usptotalk.com/why-does-the-ptab-still-have-a-backlog/ 4 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/03/16/prespective-of-an-anonymous-patent-examiner/id=2190/ 5 http://patentlyo.com/jobs/2009/08/director-kappos-patent-quality-equals-granting-those-claims-the-applicant-is-entitled-to-under-our-laws.html
5
Today,theUSPTOfacesasimilarcrisisintheover-applicationof§101rejections.
Suchover-applicationisapparentfromrecentmetricsofrejectionratesforvarious
technologyareas:6
Whileitisunsurprisingthattheheightened§101requirementofAliceapplies
moreheavilytosometechnologiesthanothers,itstrainscredulitythatsuchlarge
proportionsofapplications–nearly,andinoneinstanceliterally,reaching100%–
present“abstractideas”andpatent-ineligiblesubjectmatter.Thesheervolumeofsuch
rejectionscontrastswithanobservationfromonecommentatorthat“mostuseful
inventionsarepatent-eligible,andtheabstractideaandotherjudicialexceptionsare
justwhatthenameimplies,exceptions.”7
6 http://www.bilskiblog.com/blog/2015/10/update-on-uspto-e-commerce-patent-applications.html 7 http://www.ipintelligencereport.com/2015/03/23/uspto-urged-to-revise-interim-%C2%A7101-guidance-to-require-examiners-to-present-a-proper-prima-facie-case-supported-by-factual-evidence/ (emphasis in original)
6
Threedistinctfactorsmaypromotetheover-applicationof§101:
1) Asadiscretionarymechanismtorejectpatentapplications.
Someexaminersseemuninterestedinfairlyconsideringanyargumentor
approachtosatisfyingthe§101requirement.Theseexaminersareusing§101asa
discretionarytactictoflushundesirableapplications,andasserttheirconfidencethat
suchrejectionswillbegrantedampledeferenceandlittlereview–apositionwhichis
supportedbythepreviouslynotedPTABstatistics.8
2) Todefer§101analysisuntiltheendofexamination.
Manyexaminersareissuingpro-forma§101rejectionswithoutmucheffort,
strictlytopreservethebasisofrejectionthroughoutexaminationwhiletheexaminer
andapplicantdutifullyworkthroughtheotherissues,suchasnovelty,non-obviousness,
indefiniteness,restrictionrequirementsandstatutoryclassissues.Evenatthe
conclusionoftheseissues,suchexaminersmaybereluctanttoexpressapositive
opinionunder§101,andmayencouragetheapplicanttonegotiatetheissueeitherwith
theexaminer’ssupervisororwiththePTAB.
Ontheonehand,thisapproachisrationalintheshorttermgiventhevolatilityof
§101,withnewdecisionsissuingfromthecourtseachweekthataddnewwrinklesto
theissueofpatent-eligibility.Itisinefficientfortheexaminerandapplicanttowork
throughtheissueearlyinexamination,therebycreatingprosecutionhistoryestoppel,
onlytohavetorevisittheissueeverytimethestandardchanges.Moreover,Director
Kapposhasobservedthatsuchargumentsarefrequentlymoot:9
Ihavefoundthatwhenclaimsarerefinedtodistinguishovertheprior
art,recitedefiniteboundaries,andbefullyenabledbasedonacomplete
writtendescription,theydonotusuallyencounterissuesofeligibility
basedonrecitingmereabstractideasorbroadfundamentalconcept.
8 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/09/27/ptab-wonderland-statistics-alice-ptab-interpretation/id=61902/ 9 http://www.uspto.gov/blog/director/entry/some_thoughts_on_patentability
7
Ontheotherhand,thisapproachpresentsalong-terminefficiency,intheform
ofcasesreceivinganon-traversablerejectionunder§101onlyaftertheexaminerand
applicanthavediligentlyworkedtoresolveallotherissues.Thedoctrineofcompact
prosecutioniscentrallyaimedatreducingthislong-terminefficiency,andexaminers’
deferralofthepatent-eligibilitydeterminationisaviolationofthisdoctrine.Suchcases
areoftenrelegatedtothePTABdocket,incurringconsiderabledelayandexpense.
3) Completeavoidanceofthe§101determination.
Someexaminersarerespondingtoargumentsfortraversing§101with:“Ijust
don’tknow,orIjustcan’tallowtheseclaims;youwillhavetotakeitupwithmy
supervisororthePTAB.”Theseexaminersappeareitherunwillingorprohibitedfrom
issuingapositiveAliceanalysis.Theyhesitatetoexpressopinionsthatclaimedsubject
matterispatent-eligible,andtoincurtheconsequencesifhigher-levelreviewers
disagree.Accordingly,examinerschoosetostandfirmonanAlicerejectionwithout
hazardingananalysisorstatement,andtourgetheapplicanttofileanappealtopush
theresponsibilityofthe§101determinationtotheexaminer’ssupervisororthePTAB.
Examiners’reluctancetoassertpositivepatent-eligibilitydecisionsfurther
manifestsinthemannerthatexaminersaddresscaseswithallowablesubjectmatter.
Wherea§101rejectionissuccessfullytraversed,orwhenanapplicationisallowedthat
doesnotpresentasignificant§101issue,anaffirmativestatementofthepatent-
eligibilityofthesubjectmatterandclaimsmayprovideaclearanddetailedrecordof
theexaminer’sopinion.Instead,someexaminerswithdrawtheformerrejectionwithout
furtherexplanation,anddonotaddresstheissueintheNoticeofAllowance.
Thesethreecircumstancescontributetotheover-applicationof§101rejections
throughouttheexaminingcorps,asdemonstratedbythemetricsabove.Suchover-
applicationinflictsvariousformsofdamageuponthepatentsystem:inefficiency,
inflatedprosecutioncosts,andtheunfairdelayorwithholdingofpatentrightsfor
otherwiseworthwhileinventions.
8
Observation#3:§101rejectionboilerplatetemplateshaveunreasonablyproliferated.
Atypical§103obviousnessrejectionfollowsaconsistentpattern:itsetsforth
thestandardoflaw;itidentifiesthecombinationofreferences;itcorrelatesspecific
claimelementswithspecificpriorartpassages;anditsetsforthaKSR-stylestatement
aboutwhythereferencescanbecombined.Thispatternhasbeendevelopedtouse
boilerplateasonlyaframeworkforthesubstantiveanalysis,whichcanbeeasilyparsed
andevaluated.
Bycontrast,everyAlicerejectionlooksdifferentfromeveryotherAlicerejection
–eventhoughalloftheserejectionspresentthesameargument.AppendixAofthis
documentprovidesasurveyoftenrecentofficeactions,whichrevealstendifferent
variantsofthelanguageusedbyexaminerstoarticulatea§101rejection.
Thereisnopossiblepurposeservedbyhavingdozensofdifferentrestatements
ofthesamebasicargument.Inadditiontotheinefficiencyofredundantdevelopment,
thisproliferationofAlicerejectiontemplatesresultsininaccuracies;e.g.,some§101
templatesmisstatetheprinciplesofthecitedcases,orassertoutdatedlegalstandards
(“machine-or-transformation,”asperBilskicirca2007;oreven“insignificantpost-
solutionactivity,”asperFreeman-Walter-Abele).Thisvarianceunnecessarily
complicatestheapplicant’sanalysisofthebasisofrejection,andunnecessarilyexpands
thenumberofissuesthatboththeexaminerandapplicantmustaddress.
9
Observation#4:§101rejectionsareentirelyboilerplate,lackingcase-specificanalysis.
IntheAlicedecision,theSupremeCourtlookedattheinventionandclaimsfrom
avarietyofperspectives,reachedaconclusionbaseduponthetotalityofmanysuch
observations,andpresentedelevenpagesofcase-specifictechnicalexplanationasto
whytheinventionandclaimsunderreviewwerepatent-ineligible:
Bycontrast,theexamplesofAlicerejectiontemplatesprovidedinAppendixA
revealthatmanysuchrejectionsarealmostentirelyboilerplatethatisneitherwritten
for,norspecificto,theinventionorclaimsunderreview.ThetypicalAlicerejection
templatereiteratestheframeworkprovidedintheInterimGuidance,citesselected
excerptsofAliceinagenericandacontextualmanner,insertsacopyorsummaryofthe
claimsintoatemplateslot,andstatesanendconclusion,inthefollowingmanner:
Theclaimsarerejectedunder35U.S.C.§101becausetheyare
drawntoanabstractidea.
Theclaim(s)recite___claimlanguage___.Theseidea(s)is/are
notpatent-eligiblebecausesuchclaim(s)recitealawofnature,natural
phenomenon,and/oranabstractidea.
Theremainingclaimelements,___claimlanguage___,arepurely
conventionalanddonotadd“significantlymore”totheabstractidea.
Forthesereasons,theclaimsarerejectedunder35U.S.C.§101.
10
TheseexamplesreducetheextensivereviewthattheSupremeCourtconducted
inAlicetoacopy-and-pasteexercise–thefunctionalequivalentofasinglecheckbox:
Theclaimsare:
☐patent-eligibleunder§101,or
☒patent-ineligibleunder§101(seeAliceCorp.v.CLSBank).
Moreover,theexaminers’citationofAliceconstitutesamisuseofsuchmaterial.
Ratherthanconductingathoroughreviewinthemannerofabalancing-test,examiners
areusingselectedexcerptsinthemannerofa“litmustest”:
Thefailureofexaminerstoarticulateanymeaningfulorcase-specificanalysisof
thecriticalquestionofpatent-eligibilitycannotbetheintentoftheSupremeCourt’s
Aliceopinion.TheCourtsoughttopromoteadeepreflectionovertheclaimedsubject
matterandtheprinciplesofpatent-eligibility,notthepastingofclaimlanguageintoa
boilerplatetemplatewithnospecificrelationshiptothesubjectmatter.
11
Observation#5:Generic§101rejectionsapplytotwodistinctscenarios:ineligible
subjectmatterandinadequateclaiming.
BehindthegenericAlicerejection,theexaminermayhaveoneoftwodistinct
rationaleinmind:
1. Thedisclosedinventionisabstract.Thesubjectmatterisentirelywithina
non-technicalfield(e.g.:financialtransactions,riskhedging,ormethods
ofplayinggames);or,theinventionhasno“technicaleffect”(e.g.:Planet
Bingo,LLCv.VKGS,LLC,andDietGoalInnovations,LLCv.BravoMedia
LLC).Nothingcanbedonetosalvagethedisclosedinventionfroma101
rejection.
2. Theclaimlanguageisinsufficienttosatisfy101.Theclaimlanguageis
eithertoosuperficial,ortoomathematical,ornotadequatelyfocusedon
thetechnicalfunctionalityand“technicaleffect.”Newclaimsorclaim
amendmentsmaycallouttheinventioninamannerthatsatisfies101.
Despitethesetwodistinctpositions,itisdifficulttodiscernwhichpositionthe
examinerisadoptinginatypical,boilerplate-only§101rejection.Inmanycases,this
determinationisonlypossiblethroughanexaminerinterview.
Thislackofrelevantinformationisarecurringproblemwiththecurrentformat
ofofficeactions.10Whileinterviewsaregenerallyeffectiveforclarifyingtheexaminer’s
actualrationale,itwouldbemoreefficientforexaminerstostatesuchrationaleinthe
textoftheofficeaction.Addressingthisdeficiencyinthecontextof§101rejections
mayenablefurtherprogressinaddressingsimilarissuesinotherareasofpatent
examination.
10 http://www.usptotalk.com/rejection-behind-office-action/
12
Observation#6:Manyexaminersareadvisingapplicantstomodeltheirclaimsand
argumentsuponthepatent-eligibleexamplespresentedintheInterimGuidance.
OfallthematerialprovidedintheInterimGuidancetodate–indicesofrelevant
courtcasesanddicta;detailedexplanationsoflegaltheory;andnumerouslistsof
relevantfactorsforeachstepoftheflowchart–themostaccessible,determinative,and
reliablematerialforexaminersappearstobetheexamplesofpatent-eligibleand
patent-ineligiblesubjectmatterandclaims.Examinersseemmorecomfortablestating:
“theclaimedinventionresemblesexample(X)oftheInterimGuidance,andtherefore
meetswiththesamedeterminationunder§101”than“mydetailedanalysisof§101
forthisapplicationleadsmetothefollowingconclusion.”
Accordingly,examinersareroutinelyadvisingapplicantstoselectoneofthe
“approved”examplesfromtheInterimGuidance;todraftclaimsthatresemblethe
approvedhypotheticalclaims;andtopresent“technicaleffect”argumentsthatecho
theUSPTO’sanalysisoftheexample.
BeforetheJuly2015UpdatetotheInterimGuidance,suchexamplesofpatent-
eligiblesubjectmatterwerelimitedinnumber.TheoriginalInterimGuidancelistedsix
suchcases11-manylimitedtospecializedcircumstancesorunusualtypesofinventions,
andonlyoneofwhichfollowed,andthereforeapplied,theAlicedecision.AJanuary
2015UpdatetotheInterimGuidancediscussedthesecasesinmoredetail,butonly
modestlyextendedthematerialonwhichexaminersandapplicantscouldrely.
Bycontrast,theJuly2015Updateprovidedasignificantexpansionofthe
examplesofpatent-eligiblesubjectmatter,withAppendixAprovidingfournew
examplesofpatent-eligiblesubjectmatterandclaims.Moreover,theexampleswere
morefundamentalandlessspecializedthanthosepreviouslycited,andtheanalysis
providedwitheachexampleassertedanexpansivescope.Examinershaveresponded
accordingly,androutinelyrecommendthatapplicantsutilizethismaterialasamodelfor
claimsandargumentsforpatent-eligiblesubjectmatter.
11 Diamondv.Diehr;Diamondv.Chakrabarty;AMPv.Myriad;SiRFTechv.ITC;ResearchCorp.Tech.v.MicrosoftCorp.;andDDRHoldingsv.Hotels.com.
13
Observation#7:ThePatentTrialandAppealBoardisexacerbating§101issues,andis
systematicallyfailingtocontributetothestabilizationof§101application.
ArecentIPWatchdogarticledemonstratedthatof140recentdecisions,the
PTABhadfoundpatent-eligibleclaimsinonly8decisions(6%ofcasesunderreview),
andhaduphelda§101rejection–orintroducedanew§101rejectionsuasponte–in
61cases(44%ofcasesunderreview).12Also,in69cases(50%ofcasesunderreview),
theexaminerhadnotissueda§101rejection,andthePTABinstructedtheexaminerto
considerandissuea§101determination.ThesemetricsdemonstratethatthePTABis
creatingmore§101issuesthanitisresolving:applicationsaremorelikelytofaceanew
§101issuefollowingthePTABdecisionthantohaveanexisting§101issueresolved.
Moreover,thePTABhasdemonstratedasystemicfailuretoproduceanyreliable
determinations.ArecentIPWatchdogarticle13notesthatoutof20,631PTABdecisions
onex-parteappealsissuedin2013-2014,only7decisions–approximately0.04%ofthe
workproductofthePTAB–weredesignatedeither“precedential”or“informative.”
ThemagnitudeofthelostopportunityofthePTABtocontributetotheUSPTO’s
effortstostabilize§101analysisisreflectedinthefollowingobservation.Accordingto
thePTAB’sannualproductionreports,intheninemonthsfollowingAlice,thePTAB
disposedof8,116ex-parteappeals14–yet,theInterimGuidancereferencesnoteven
onePTABdecisioninitsidentificationofpatent-eligiblesubjectmatterexamples.
ThispatternreflectstheattitudesoftheSupremeCourtandtheFederalCircuit–
which,todate,haveidentifiedonlyonepatentfeaturingpatent-eligibleclaims.15The
refusalofthehighcourtstoleadonthisissuehasinfectedtheUSPTO,andparticularly
thePTAB,withthiscultureofinvalidity–conveyingtheimpressionthatthepatent-
eligibilityofanyclaimedsubjectmatterisatbestspeculative,andatworstamirage.
12 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/09/27/ptab-wonderland-statistics-alice-ptab-interpretation/id=61902/ 13 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/09/27/only-1-in-20631-ex-parte-appeals-designated-precedential-by-ptab/id=61999/ 14 http://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/appealing-patent-decisions/statistics/ptabbpai-statistics-archive-page 15 DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com.
14
III. PROPOSALSFORFURTHERREFINEMENTOFTHEINTERIMGUIDANCEON
PATENTSUBJECTMATTERELIGIBILITY
ThefollowingsuggestionsforfurtherrefinementoftheInterimGuidanceare
respectfullysubmittedinviewoftheobservationsnotedabove.
Recommendation#1:Requirea§101analysisontherecordineveryapplication.
Asnotedabove,§101challengesareroutineandexpectedinpatent
enforcement.Becauseeveryissuedpatentfacestheprospectofapatent-eligibility
challenge,itisadvisablethateveryapplicationandpatentshouldfeatureanexplicit
patent-eligibilitydeterminationandanalysis.
Thisdeterminationshouldbebothcase-specific(utilizingboilerplatelanguage
onlyasaframeworkfortheanalysisoftheparticularcaseunderreview)anddetailed(a
considerationoftheclaimedinventionfromavarietyofangles,inthemannerofthe
SupremeCourtAlicedecision).
Furthermore,examinersshouldacknowledgethesuccessfultraversalofa§101
rejectionwithanaffirmativestatementofpatent-eligibility.Casesthatclearthe§101
determinationbyawidemarginshouldalsoincludeapositivestatementofthe
examiner’spatent-eligibilityconclusion,andmayutilizethe“streamlined”analysis
providedintheInterimGuidance.
Thisrequirementwillprovidethefollowingbenefits:
• Patenteeswhofaceapatent-eligibilitychallengeduringaninfringementtrial
orinter-partesreviewcancitetheexplicitanddetailedstatementofthe
examinerthatsupportsandinformstheconclusionofpatent-eligibility.
• Applicantsfacinga§101rejectionwillhaveaclearstatementfromthe
examinerthatcanbereviewedfortechnicalaccuracy,legalsufficiency,and
persuasiveness.
• Thecollectiveoutputofpatent-eligibilitydeterminationsbytheUSPTO
examiningcorpswillbeamenabletoanalysistoidentifypatternsandtrends
intheapplicationof§101.
15
Recommendation#2:Requireexaminerstoexpressopinionsaboutpatent-eligibility,
andtoworkproactivelywiththeapplicanttoresolve§101issues.
Aspreviouslynoted,§101rejectionsarebeingover-appliedforvariousreasons:
asadiscretionaryrejectionmechanism;todeferpatent-eligibilitydeterminationsuntil
otherissuesareresolved;ortopushthe§101issueuptothesupervisorand/orPTAB.
USPTOadministrationmustacttoreversetheculturalskewthatfavors§101
rejectionsanddiscouragespositivestatementsofpatent-eligibility.Thismessageshould
beconveyedthroughboththeInterimGuidanceandtheadministration’sgeneral
cultivationofexaminingcorpsculture,asfollows:
1) Examinersshouldbeencouragedtoexpressopinionsandhonest
conclusionsabout§101.Supervisorsshouldnotsetgoalsorquotasfor
allowanceorrejectionrates,butshouldinsteadreviewexaminers’
rationaleonacase-by-casebasis.
2) Abusesof§101examinationpracticeshouldbediscouraged,and
eventuallyidentifiedandpenalizedasanexaminationerror.Suchabuses
include:rejectionsthatarecompletelygenericandlackinginanalysis;
rejectionsthatmischaracterizethetechnology;andtheroutineover-
application(suchasanear-100%rejectionrate)orunder-application
(suchasanear-0%rejectionrateinatechnologyareathatmay
frequentlyraise§101issues).
3) Intheinterestofcompactprosecution,examinersshouldbeencouraged
toworkproactivelywiththeapplicanttoidentifyoptionsfor
amendmentsthatmayputtheclaimsintoaformthatsatisfies§101.For
example,whereclaimspresentatechniqueonlyasanabstractconcept
butthespecificationprovidesfurtherdetailsaboutspecific
implementationsand/orusesthatsatisfy§101,theexaminershould
identifysuchsubjectmatterasmovingtheapplicationinapositive
directionifamendedintotheclaims.
16
Recommendation#3:Provideanabundanceofexamplesofinventionsandclaims,
withadetailedanalysisandexplanationoftheoutcome.
Aspreviouslynoted,themostaccessibleandrelatablematerialintheInterim
Guidance,forbothexaminersandapplicants,isthesetofexamplesofsubjectmatter,
claims,andanaccompanying§101analysis.TheexamplesprovidedintheJuly2015
UpdatetotheInterimGuidancesignificantlywidenedthebaseofsubjectmatterupon
whichexaminersandapplicantsrelyas“safeharbors”ofpatent-eligibility.
Itisthereforeadvisablethat,ofallthesubjectmatterthatmightbeaddedtothe
InterimGuidance,theUSPTOshouldprioritizeexpandingthissetofexamples,drawn
frombothcaselawandhypotheticals,thathavegeneralapplicabilitytoawiderangeof
pendingapplications.Ideally,theInterimGuidancemayevolveintoasignificantlibrary
ofexamplesofbothpatent-eligibleandpatent-ineligiblesubjectmatter.
ItisfurthersubmittedthattheUSPTOshouldprioritizetheidentificationof
patent-eligiblesubjectmatter,claims,andanalyses,asareflectionofthreerealities:
(1) Thecourts,includingthePTAB,arealreadyprovidingnumerousexamples
ofdeterminationsofpatent-ineligibility,andveryfewexamplesof
patent-eligibility.16Whiletheseopinionsshouldbedutifullyreportedin
theInterimGuidance,theUSPTOshouldallocateitseffortsinthe
oppositeproportionintheinterestofbalance.
(2) Examinersfaceacomparativelylowthresholdinassertingpatent-
ineligibility.Suchdeterminationsareprimarilybasedupontheexaminer’s
conceptualreviewoftheclaimedinvention,andrarelyrelyuponan
exampleofpatent-ineligiblesubjectmatter.Ontheotherhand,both
examinersandapplicantscloselyfollowtheprovidedexamplesofpatent-
eligiblesubjectmatter.
(3) Ingeneral,itiseasiertodraftpatentclaimsandspecificationstowarda
patent-eligibleexample,thantodraftsuchclaimsandspecificationsina
mannerthatavoidsaminefieldlitteredwithpatent-ineligibilityexamples.
16 http://www.fenwick.com/pages/post-alice.aspx
17
Recommendation#4:Organizeexamplesintotwosetsofcontrastingexamples:
subject-matterexamplesandclaimexamples.
Aspreviouslynoted,examiners’rejectionsofclaimsunderAlicetypicallyreflect
oneoftwodeterminations:eitherthedisclosedinventionisirreconcilably“abstract”;or
theinventionasclaimedfailstosatisfy§101,butthedisclosureprovidesfurthersubject
matterproviding“significantlymore”thanthe“abstractidea,”suchthatclaim
amendmentsareavailablethatmayrecovertheclaimsfrompatent-ineligibility.
However,thetypical§101rejectionthatgenericallycitesportionsofAlicefailsto
indicatewhichconclusiontheexaminerhasreached.
ItisrecommendedthattheInterimGuidancearticulatethesedistinctstepsasan
elementoftheStep2B/“SignificantlyMore”analysis.Forclaimsrecitingan“abstract
idea”withoutelementsthatprovide“significantlymore,”theInterimGuidanceshould
urgeexaminerstoconsiderwhetheranyportionofthespecificationthatisnotreflected
intheindependentclaimsmayprovide“significantlymore”thanthe“abstractidea.”
Toreinforcethisdistinction,theInterimGuidancecouldorganizeitsexamples
intotwodistincttypes:
(1) Subjectmatterthatis“abstract”perse;and
(2) Subjectmatterthatisnot“abstract”perse,butthatisclaimedina
mannerthatfailstoprovidepatent-eligiblesubjectmatter.
Itisfurtheradvisablethat,aswithseveralexamplesintheJuly2015Update,
theseexamplesmaybepresentedascontrastingpairsthatrespectivelyfailandsatisfy§
101,withananalysisthatemphasizesacriticaldistinction.
Finally,theInterimGuidanceshouldencourageexaminerstoincludeaclear
statementinthe§101analysisthatidentifiesoneofthesetwoscenariosasthe
examiner’sconclusion.Consistentwiththeproactiveassistanceadvisedaboveinthe
interestofcompactprosecution,thelatterconclusionshouldincludeanidentificationof
particularportionsofthespecification,and/ordependentclaims,thattheexaminer
believestobevalidoptionsforclaimamendmentsthatenabletheindependentclaims
toachievepatent-eligibilityunder§101.
18
Recommendation#5:Classifytechnologiesaccordingto“technicaleffect”probability.
TheJuly2015UpdatetotheInterimGuidanceprovidesaninterestingoptionto
assistwithexaminers’§101analyses.Example15demonstratestheapplicationofthe
“streamlinedanalysis”tobypassthecomplexityof§101analysisforclaimed
technologiesthatpresent“self-evident”patent-eligibility.Thisapproachcontrastswith
areasofinnovationthathavebeenidentifiedasproblematicfor§101,suchas“method
oforganizinghumanbehavior”and“fundamentaleconomicpracticeslongprevalentin
oursystemofcommerce.”
Thiscontrastraisesaninterestingandvaluableopportunitytoclassifygeneral
areasoftechnologythatpromptvaryinglevelsof§101analysis.Forexample:
• Sometechnologiesmaybeidentifiedasunlikelytoraisea§101issue.Such
technologiesmayinclude:hardwaredevicedriversandcontrolsystems;
encryption;datacompression;errordetectionandcorrection;media
encoding;processisolation;searchtechniques;andqueryprocessing.
• Sometechnologiesmaybeidentifiedaspossiblyraisinga§101issue.Such
technologiesinclude:socialinteraction;targetedadvertising;webservices
thatdonotpertaintotechnology;andproductrecommendations.
• Sometechnologiesmaybeidentifiedaslikelytoraisea§101issue.Such
technologiesinclude:financialtransactions;riskhedging;contractual
relationships;methodsofplayinggames;anddiagnostictechniques.
Notably,thesecategoriesarenotdispositive–technologieswithself-evident
applicationmayneverthelessrequirea§101rejectionifclaimedinaconceptualand
preemptivemanner;andtechniquesinproblematicareasmayneverthelesspresent
patent-eligibletechnology(asdemonstratedbyDDRHoldings,LLCv.Hotels.com).
Rather,thesecategoriesindicatethelikely“self-evident”technicalcharacterofa
technicalfield,andthedepthof§101analysisthatsuchtechnologieslikelyrequire.
Thesecategoriesmaybeexpandedandadjustedovertimeasfurtherexamples
areprovidedbycaselaw,andmayeventuallybepresentedasaspectrumofthe“self-
evident”technicalcharacterfordifferentfieldsoftechnology.
19
Recommendation#6:Provideexamplesofboilerplatethatexaminerscanuseto
provideaframeworkforvarioustypesof§101conclusions.
Aspreviouslynoted,examiners’developmentanduseofboilerplatetemplates
toarticulate§101rejectionshavegivenrisetoahostofproblems.Thenumberand
varietyofsuchtemplateshaveinexplicablyproliferated,resultingininefficiencyand
unnecessarycomplexitywithnocognizablebenefit.Moreover,thereductionof§101
analysistoa“fill-in-the-blanks”-styletemplateenablesthesubstitutionof
decontextualizedcourtstatementsandsubjectiveconclusionsforcase-specificanalysis.
TheInterimGuidancecanaddresstheseissuesbyencouragingexaminerstouse
oneofasmallnumberofboilerplatetemplatestoexpressvarious§101determinations.
First,eachboilerplatemayarticulateaspecificconclusionunder§101,suchas:
• Theclaimsarepatent-eligibleunderastreamlinedanalysis.
• Theclaimsarepatent-eligiblebecausetheydonotpresentanabstractidea.
• Theclaimsarepatent-eligiblebecausetheypresentanabstractidea,butalso
provide“significantlymore”thantheabstractidea.
• Theclaimsarepatent-ineligiblebecausethesubjectmatterisperseabstract.
• Theclaimsarepatent-ineligibleforfailingtoprovide“significantlymore”
thananabstractidea,buttheinclusionofadditionaldetail(specifically
identifiedintheofficeaction)islikelytosatisfytherequirementsof§101.
Second,eachtypeofboilerplatemustincludemorethanaslottopasteinclaim
language,butratherprovidesaframeworkfortheexaminer’scase-specificdiscussionof
theissue–suchasthe“abstractidea”thattheexaminerbelievestheclaimsrecite;the
basisforcharacterizingadditionallimitationsas“conventional”;and,forsubjectmatter
thatisclaimedinaconceptualmannerandraisespreemptionissues,someexamplesof
scenariosthattheclaimsunreasonablycoverthatarewithintheclaimsbutoutsidethe
applicant’sintendedfieldofuse.
TheprovisionofsuchboilerplateoptionsintheInterimGuidancemayboth
fosterandcompelexaminerstoprovideextensive,case-specificcommentaryand
analysisasthebasisfortheir§101determinations.
20
Recommendation#7:EncouragethePTABtoidentifyexamplesofpatent-eligible
subjectmatter,andtodesignatesuchopinionsasprecedentialorinformative.
Aspreviouslynoted,thePatentTrialandAppealBoardexhibitsbothastatistical
tilttowardcreatingratherthanresolving§101issues,andarefusaltoidentify
precedentialopinions.AstheUSPTO’smostauthoritativeanddetailedsourceof§101
determinations–withanannualproductionof10,000opinions,ofwhich50%includea
determinationof§101patent-eligibility–thePTAB’sabsencefromtheInterim
Guidancereflectsalostopportunitytocontributetothestabilizationof§101law.
ItisrecommendedthattheOfficeofPatentLegalAdministrationworkwiththe
PatentTrialandAppealBoardtoidentifyasignificantnumberofex-parteappealsthat
presentprototypicalexamplesofpatent-eligibleandpatent-ineligibletechnologiesand
claimstyles.ThecitationintheInterimGuidanceofexamplesthatarefoundedupon
realapplicationsandclaims,resultinginafulllegaldetermination,providesinherently
morereliablematerialthanhypotheticalsdevisedsolelybyUSPTOadministration.
Goingforward,thePTABshouldbeurgedtoidentifyselectcases–suchasfive
decisionspermonth–thatclarifythepatent-eligibilityofvarioustechnologyareasand
claimstyles,whichcanbeperiodicallypublishedintheFederalRegisterand
incorporatedintotheInterimGuidance.Furthermore,theOfficeofPatentLegal
AdministrationmayrequestthePTABtoidentify,anddesignateasprecedential,ex-
parteappealsinvolvingissuesinparticularneedofclarification–suchasthoseinvolving
technologiesinthepatent-eligibility“grayzone”likesocialnetworkingtechnologies.
ItispossiblethatthePTAB’sreluctancetodesignateprecedentialdecisions
derivesfromareluctancetoexposeitsassertionsforreversalbyhighercourts.
However,thisareaoflawiswidelyrecognizedasdynamic,andreversalsofthePTAB
canbedescribedintheFederalRegisterasthecorrectionofprevious§101decisions.
Moreover,byexacerbatingratherthanreducingtheprevalenceanduncertaintyof§
101issues,thePTABfailstoreducetherateofexparteappeal,andbyextensionthe
PTAB’sunresolvablebacklogandpendency.Participatinginthestabilizationof§101is
thereforeinthePTAB’sbestinterests.
21
IV. CONCLUSION
ThisconcludesmyobservationsabouttheJuly2015UpdatetotheInterim
GuidanceonPatentSubjectMatterEligibilityandrecommendationsforfurther
improvementintheInterimGuidance.
Furtherdiscussionofthistopicisavailableatthefollowingaddress:
http://www.usptotalk.com
Respectfullysubmitted,
DavidStein,Esq.
22
AppendixA:
Variancein§101RejectionBoilerplateTemplates
ThisAppendixprovidessamplesof§101rejectionstodemonstratethisvariety.
Theseexamplesweredeterminedbychoosingtenrecentcasesinvolvingthetitleterm
“Advertising”–whichyieldedtendistinctformulationsofthisrejection.
Alltenexamplesreachthesameconclusionbaseduponthesamegeneral
rationale.Nevertheless,eachdecisionpresentsadistinctexpressionofthese
conclusionsfeaturingadifferentamalgamationofexcerptsfromsuchsourcesasthe
AliceandMayoSupremeCourtopinions.Moreover,thelanguageineachexampleisnot
specifictotheinventionorclaimsunderreview;otherthantheinclusionofclaim
language,therejectionprovidesgeneralizedstatements,suchas“theinventionisdrawn
toafundamentalbusinesspractice”and“theremainingclaimelementsare
conventionalanddonotaddsignificantlymoretotheabstractidea.”
23
Example1-U.S.PatentApplicationNo.13/891,034
Theclaimedinventionisdirectedtonon-statutorysubjectmatterbecausethe
claimsasawhole,consideringallelementsbothindividuallyandincombination,donot
amounttosignificantlymorethananabstractidea.Theclaimsaredirectedtothe
abstractideaofadvertisingwhichisconsideredafundamentaleconomicpractice.The
additionalelementsorcombinationofelementsintheclaimsotherthantheabstract
ideaperseamountstonomorethan:(i)mereinstructionstoimplementtheideaona
computer,and/or(ii)recitationofgenericcomputerstructurethatservestoperform
genericcomputerfunctionsthatarewell-understood,routine,andconventional
activitiespreviouslyknowntothepertinentindustry.Viewedasawhole,these
additionalclaimelementsdonotprovidemeaningfullimitationstotransformthe
abstractideaintoapatenteligibleapplicationoftheabstractideasuchthattheclaims
amounttosignificantlymorethantheabstractideabyitself.Therefore,theclaimsare
rejectedunder35U.S.C.§101asbeingdirectedtonon-statutorysubjectmatter.
24
Example2-U.S.PatentApplicationNo.13/938,991
Claims1-19arerejectedunder35U.S.C.§101becausetheclaimedinventionis
directedtoajudicialexception(i.e.,alawofnature,anaturalphenomenon,oran
abstractidea)withoutsignificantlymore.Claims1-19aredirectedto(invention)which
isafundamentaleconomicpracticeusedtoincreasesalesandthereforeanabstract
idea.Theclaimsdonotincludeadditionalelementsthataresufficienttoamountto
significantlymorethanthejudicialexceptionbecausethegenericallyrecitedcomputer
elements(locationengine,database,andprocessor)donotaddameaningfullimitation
totheabstractideabecausetheywouldberoutineinanycomputerimplementation.
25
Example3-U.SPatentApplicationNo.13/949,555
Claims1-20arerejectedunder35U.S.C.101becausebaseduponconsideration
oftheclaimsasawhole,theclaimsheld[sic]toclaimanabstractideaandthereareno
meaningfullimitationsintheclaimsthattransformtheexceptionintoapatenteligible
applicationsuchthattheclaimsamounttosignificantlymorethantheexceptionitself.
Therefore,theclaimsarerejectedasineligiblesubjectmatterunder35U.S.C.101.The
rationaleforthisfindingisexplainedbelow:
(inserttwo-pageexplanationofAliceandMayo)
UnderPartI,theclaimsaredirectedtotheabstractideaof(invention).
UnderPartII,theabstractideahasnotbeenappliedinaneligiblemannerand
failstoprovideanytechnicalimprovements.Here,theadditionalelement(s)or
combinationofelementsintheclaimsotherthantheabstractideaperseamounttono
morethan:(i)mereinstructionstoimplementtheideaonacomputer,and(ii)recitation
ofgenericcomputerstructurethatservestoperformgenericcomputerfunctionsthat
arewell-understood,routine,andconventionalactivitiespreviouslyknowntothe
pertinentindustry.Viewedasawhole,theseadditionalclaimelement(s)donotprovide
meaningfullimitation(s)totransformtheabstractideaintoapatenteligibleapplication
oftheabstractideasuchthattheclaim(s)amounttosignificantlymorethanthe
abstractideaitself.Therefore,theclaim(s)arerejectedunder35U.S.C.101asbeing
directedtonon-statutorysubjectmatter.
26
Example4-U.S.PatentApplicationNo.13/572,370
Theclaimsarerejectedunder35U.S.C.101becausetheclaimedinventionis
directedtonon-statutorysubjectmatter.Intheinstantinvention,theclaimsare
directedtowardstheconceptof(claimlanguage).However,(claimlanguage)is
consideredafundamentaleconomicpracticeandrequiringnomorethanageneric
computertoperformgenericcomputerfunctionsthatarewell-understood,routineand
conventionalactivitiespreviouslyknowntotheindustry.
Therefore,theclaimsaredrawntocomparingnewandstoredinformationand
usingrulestoidentifyoptionsthatthecourtshavefoundtobeabstractidea(Smart
Genev.AdvancedBiologicalLabs)asdelineatedbytheInterimEligibilityGuidance,and
doesnotgosignificantlybeyondgenerallylinkingtheuseofanabstractideatoa
particulartechnologicalenvironmentsuchasacomputerimplementedmethodofthe
claimedfeatures.Thus,theclaimsaredrawntoapatentineligibleabstractidea.
Theclaimsdonotrecitelimitationsthatare“significantlymore”thanthe
abstractideabecausetheclaimsdonotreciteanimprovementtoanothertechnology
ortechnicalfield,animprovementtothefunctioningofthecomputeritself,or
meaningfullimitationsbeyondgenerallylinkingtheuseofanabstractideatoa
particulartechnologicalenvironment.itshouldbenotedthelimitationsofthecurrent
claimsareperformedbythegenericallyrecitedprocessor.Thelimitationsaremerely
instructionstoimplementtheabstractideaonacomputerandrequirenomorethana
genericcomputertoperformgenericcomputerfunctionsthatarewell-understood,
routineandconventionalactivitiespreviouslyknowntotheindustry.Therefore,the
claimsaredirectedtonon-statutorysubjectmatter.
27
Example5-U.S.PatentApplicationNo.14/006,076
Theclaimsarerejectedunder35U.S.C.101becausetheclaimedinventionis
directedtonon-statutorysubjectmatterbecausetheclaim(s)asawhole,consideringall
claimelementsbothindividuallyandincombination,donotamounttosignificantly
morethananabstractidea.Theclaim(s)is/aredirectedtotheabstractideaof
(invention).Theadditionalelement(s)orcombinationofelementsintheclaim(s)other
thantheabstractideaperseamount(s)tonomorethanmereinstructionsto
implementtheideaonacomputer,and/orrecitationofgenericcomputerstructurethat
servestoperformgenericcomputerfunctionsthatarewell-understood,routine,and
conventionalactivitiespreviouslyknowntothepertinentindustry.Viewedasawhole,
theseadditionalclaimelement(s)donotprovidemeaningfullimitation(s)totransform
theabstractideaintoapatenteligibleapplicationoftheabstractideasuchthatthe
claim(s)amountstosignificantlymorethantheabstractideaitself.Therefore,the
claim(s)arerejectedunder35U.S.C.101asbeingdirectedtonon-statutorysubject
matter.
28
Example6-U.S.PatentApplicationNo.13/814,440
Theclaimsarerejectedunder35U.S.C.§101becausetheclaimedinventionis
directedtoajudicialexception(i.e.,alawofnature,anaturalphenomenon,oran
abstractidea)withoutsignificantlymore.
Theclaimsaredirectedtowards(invention)whichisconsideredtobeanabstract
ideainasmuchassuchactivityisconsideredbothamethodoforganizinghumanactivity
a[sic]fundamentaleconomicpractice.Theclaimsdonotincludeadditionalelements
thataresufficienttoamounttosignificantlymorethanthejudicialexceptionbecause
theclaimsmerelyamounttotheapplicationorinstructionstoapplytheabstractidea.
Theelementsoftheprocessare:(claimlanguage)
Theelementsoftheinstantprocess,whentakenalone,eachexecuteina
mannerroutinelyandconventionallyexpectedoftheseelements.Thatis,(claim
language).
Theelementsoftheinstantprocess,whentakenincombination,togetherdo
notoffersubstantiallymorethanthesumofthefunctionsoftheelementswheneachis
takenalone.Thatis,theelementsinvolvedintherecitedprocessundertaketheirroles
inperformanceoftheiractivitiesaccordingtotheirgenericfunctionalitieswhichare
well-understood,routineandconventional.Theelementstogetherexecuteinroutinely
andconventionallyacceptedcoordinatedmannersandinteractwiththeirpartner
elementstoachieveanoveralloutcomewhich,similarly,ismerelythecombinedand
coordinatedexecutionofgenericcomputerfunctionalitieswhicharewell-understood,
routineandconventionalactivitiespreviouslyknowntotheindustry.
Theclaimsasawhole,donotamounttosignificantlymorethantheabstract
ideaitself.Thisisbecausetheclaimsdonoteffectanimprovementtoanother
technologyortechnicalfield;theclaimsdonotamounttoanimprovementtothe
functioningofthecomputeritself;andtheclaimsdonotmovebeyondagenerallinkof
theuseofanabstractideatoaparticulartechnologicalenvironment.
Theclaimsmerelyamounts[sic]totheapplicationorinstructionstoapplythe
abstractideaonauserdevice,andisconsideredtoamounttonothingmorethan
29
requiringagenericcomputersystemtomerelycarryouttheabstractideaitself.As
such,theclaims,whenconsideredasawhole,arenothingmorethantheinstructionto
implementtheabstractideainaparticular,albeitwell-understood,routineand
conventionaltechnologicalenvironment.Accordingly,theExaminerconcludesthat
therearenomeaningfullimitationsintheclaimsthattransformthejudicialexception
intoapatenteligibleapplicationsuchthattheclaimsamounttosignificantlymorethan
thejudicialexceptionitself.
30
Example7-U.S.PatentApplicationNo.14/063,546
Theclaimsarerejectedunder35U.S.C.101becausetheclaimedinventionis
directedtoajudicialexception(i.e.,alawofnature,anaturalphenomenon,oran
abstractidea)withoutsignificantlymore.TheClaimsaredirectedtoanabstractidea
withoutsignificantlymore.Notetheillustrativeandnotlimitingexamplesofabstract
ideaswithinthe“FederalRegisterNotice:2014InterimGuidanceonPatentSubject
MatterEligibility”(linkprovidedbelow):“Mitigatingsettlementrisk;heading;creatinga
contractualrelationship;usingadvertisingasanexchangeorcurrency;processing
informationthroughaclearinghouse;comparingnewandstoredinformationandusing
rulestoidentifyoptions;usingcategoriestoorganize,storeandtransmitinformation;
organizinginformationthroughmathematicalcorrelations;managingagameofbingo;
theArrheniusequationforcalculatingthecuretimeofrubber;aformulaforupdating
alarmlimits;amathematicalformularelatingtostandingwavephenomena;anda
mathematicalprocedureforconvertingoneformofnumericalrepresentationto
another”.
Theseclaimsaredirectedtotheabstractideaof(invention).Thisissimilartothe
abstractideaexampleof:usingadvertisingasanexchangeorcurrency;processing
informationthroughaclearinghouse;comparingnewandstoredinformationandusing
rulestoidentifyoptions;usingcategoriestoorganize,storeandtransmitinformation.
Theclaim(s)does/donotincludeadditionalelementsthataresufficienttoamountto
significantlymorethanthejudicialexceptionbecausetheadditionalelementsare:(i)
mereinstructionstoimplementtheideaonacomputer,and/or(ii)recitationofgeneric
computerstructurethatservestoperformgenericcomputerfunctionsthatarewell-
understood,routine,andconventionalactivitiespreviouslyknowntothepertinent
industry.Viewedasawhole,theseadditionalclaimelement(s)donotprovide
meaningfullimitation(s)totransformtheabstractideaintoapatenteligibleapplication
oftheabstractideasuchthattheclaim(s)amountstosignificantlymorethanthe
abstractideaitself.Thus,theclaim(s)arerejectedunder35U.S.C.101asbeingdirected
tonon-statutorysubjectmatter.
31
Pleaseseethe35U.S.C.101sectionattheExaminationGuidanceandTraining
MaterialspageontheUSPTO.govwebsite.ParticularlynotetheFederalRegisterNotice:
2014InterimGuidanceonPatentSubjectMatterEligibility,theAbstractIdeaExamples,
andtheTrainingSlides(February2015).Theinformationisavailableatthiswebpage:
(url).
32
Example8-U.S.PatentApplicationNo.14/129,344
Claim1isdirectedtotheabstractideaof(claimlanguage).Thecourtshave
notedthat“comparingnewandstoredinformationandusingrulestoidentifyoptions”
(SmartGene)isanexampleofajudicialexception.Theclaimsdiscloses[sic]a
comparablejudicialexceptionsuchas(claimlanguage).Thestepsof(claimlanguage)
areallstepsthatdescribetheabstractidea.
Theclaimsdonotincludeadditionalelementsthataresufficienttoamountto
significantlymorethanthejudicialexceptionbecausetheabstractideahasnotbeen
appliedinaneligiblemanner.Thereisnoimprovementtoanothertechnologyor
technicalfield,noimprovementstothefunctioningofthecomputeritself,andno
meaningfullimitationsbeyondgenerallylinkingtheuseofanabstractideatoa
particulartechnicalenvironment.Furthermore,thestepsoractsperformed(claim
language)inindependentmethodclaim1arenotenoughtoqualifyas“significantly
more”thantheabstractideaitself.Theclaimsareamethodofgathering,analyzing,and
selectingdataandrequirenomorethanageneralpurposecomputerorcomputer
systemtoperformgenericcomputerfunctionsthatarewell-understood,routineand
conventional.Therefore,basedonthetwo-partMayoanalysis,therearenomeaningful
limitationsintheclaimsthattransformtheexceptionintoapatenteligibleapplication
suchthattheclaimsamounttosignificantlymorethantheexceptionitself.Thusthe
claimsarerejectedasineligiblesubjectmatterunder35U.S.C.101.
AliceCorp.alsoestablishesthatthesameanalysisshouldbeusedforall
categoriesofclaims(e.g.,productandprocessclaims).Therefore,independentproduct
claims1and15arealsorejectedasineligiblesubjectmatterunder35U.S.C.101for
substantiallythesamereasonsasthemethodclaims.Thecomponents(i.e.memory,
modules,etc.)describedintheindependentproductclaimsaddnothingofsubstanceto
theunderlyingabstractidea.Atbest,thesystemsrecitedintheclaimsaremerely
providinganenvironmentinwhichtocarryouttheabstractidea.
Thedependentclaimsarealsorejectedasineligiblesubjectmatterunder35
U.S.C.101basedonarationalesimilartotheclaimsfromwhichtheydepend.
33
Example9-U.S.PatentApplicationNo.13/844,982
Theclaimedinventionisnotdirectedtopatenteligiblesubjectmatter.Based
uponconsiderationofalloftherelevantfactorswithrespecttotheclaimasawhole,
claim(s)1-20aredeterminedtobedirectedtoanabstractidea.Therationaleforthis
determinationisexplainedbelow:
Intheinstantcase,theclaimsaredirectedtowards(claimlanguage),whichisan
abstractidea.Inaddition,(claimlanguage)isconsideredtargetedadvertising.Targeted
advertisingisafundamentaleconomicpractice,whichisanabstractidea.Further,
(claimlanguage)involvesdeterminingasum.Asumisamathematicalprocedureand
thedisclosedprocessisamathematicalprocedureforconvertingoneformofnumerical
representationtoanother.Thishasalsobeenclassifiedasanabstractidea.Similar
claimsdirectedtousingcategoriestoorganize,storeandtransmitinformationin
Cyberfonev.CNNhaveallbeenfoundbythecourtstobeabstractideas.Furtherseveral
additionalcourtdecisionshaveidentifiedfundamentaleconomicpracticesasideasas
well(Alice,Bilski,BuySAFEandUltramercial).
Theclaimsdonotincludeadditionalelementsthataresufficienttoamountto
“significantlymore”thantheabstractideabecausetheonlyadditionalfeaturesinthe
claimsincludegenericrecitationsofthehardwarecomponent‘aprocessor’thatisused
tosend,receiveandmanipulatedatawhicharewell-understood,routineand
conventionalactivitiespreviouslyknowntotheindustryandarenotdisclosedasa
separatetechnologyimprovedbytheinvention,butrathertechnologythatfacilitates
theclaimedjudicialexceptions.Thegenericallyrecitedhardwareelementdoesnotadd
meaningfullimitationsbeyondgenerallylinkingtheuseofanabstractideatoa
particulartechnologicalenvironment.Becausetheclaimsaredirectedtojudicial
exceptionsandnothingsignificantlymore,theclaimsaredirectedtosubjectmatterthat
isineligibleforpatentprotection.
34
Example10-U.S.PatentApplicationNo.13/693,470
Theclaimsis/arerejectedunder35U.S.C.101becausetheclaimedinventionis
directedtoajudicialexception(i.e.,alawofnature,anaturalphenomenon,oran
abstractidea)withoutsignificantlymore.Examplesofabstractideasarefundamental
economicpractices,certainmethodsoforganizinghumanactivities,anideaitself,and
mathematicalrelationships/formulations.Theclaimsis/aredirectedtotheabstractidea
of(claimlanguage).SuchasinDigitechwhichemploysmathematicalalgorithmsto
manipulateexistinginformationtogenerateadditionalinformation,theclaimed
conceptisdirectedtowards(claimlanguage).Thecourtshavefoundtheconceptof
comparinginformationregardingasampleortestsubjecttoacontrolortargetdata
abstract(seepage5oftheJuly2015Update:SubjectMatterEligibility).Theclaim(s)
does/donotincludeadditionalelementsthataresufficienttoamounttosignificantly
morethanthejudicialexceptionbecausethestepsrequirenomorethanageneric
computer.Thefunctionsofthecomputerarenomorethanthatwhichthecourtshave
rejectedaswell-understood,routineandconventionalsuchas“receiving,processing,
andstoringdata”and“receivingortransmittingdataoveranetwork”.Theclaim’suse
of“mobiledevice”andwirelessaccesspointdevice”addsnoinventiveconcept.These
devicesarebeingusedtocreateacomputernetworkenvironmenttoperformawell-
knownpracticefromthepre-internetworld.Thisconceptisnot“necessarilyrootedin
computertechnologyinordertoovercomeaproblemspecificallyarisingintherealmof
computernetworks”(seeDDRHoldings,LLCvs.Hotels.cometal.(Fed.Cir.214)).A
computerthat“receivesandsendsinformationoveranetwork–withnofurther
specification–isnotevenarguablyinventive”(seeBuysafeInc.vsGoogleInc.(Fed.Cir.
2014)).Additionally,theclaimedfunctionsofthegenericcomputerrepresent
insignificantdata-gatheringstepsandthusaddnothingofpracticalsignificancetothe
abstractidea(seeUltramercialInc.vs.HuluLLC(Fed.Cir.2014)).Theadditional
element(s)orcombinationofelementsintheclaim(s)otherthantheabstractideaper
seamount(s)tonomorethanmereinstructionstoimplementtheideaonacomputer,
and/orrecitationofgenericcomputerstructurethatservestoperformgeneric
35
computerfunctionsthatarewell-understood,routine,andconventionalactivities
previouslyknowntothepertinentindustry.Viewedasawhole,theseadditionalclaim
element(s)donotprovidemeaningfullimitation(s)totransformtheabstractideaintoa
patenteligibleapplicationoftheabstractideasuchthattheclaim(s)amountto
significantlymorethantheabstractideaitself.Therefore,theclaimsarerejectedunder
35U.S.C.101asbeingdirectedtonon-statutorysubjectmatter.
top related