submission of comments regarding the july 2015 update to the interim guidance … · ·...

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


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


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



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


Theclaimsarerejectedunder35U.S.C.§101becausetheclaimedinventionis


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




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


Claim1isdirectedtotheabstractideaof(claimlanguage).Thecourtshave

notedthat“comparingnewandstoredinformationandusingrulestoidentifyoptions”

(SmartGene)isanexampleofajudicialexception.Theclaimsdiscloses[sic]a

comparablejudicialexceptionsuchas(claimlanguage).Thestepsof(claimlanguage)

areallstepsthatdescribetheabstractidea.

Theclaimsdonotincludeadditionalelementsthataresufficienttoamountto

significantlymorethanthejudicialexceptionbecausetheabstractideahasnotbeen

appliedinaneligiblemanner.Thereisnoimprovementtoanothertechnologyor

technicalfield,noimprovementstothefunctioningofthecomputeritself,andno


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


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


particulartechnologicalenvironment.Becausetheclaimsaredirectedtojudicial

exceptionsandnothingsignificantlymore,theclaimsaredirectedtosubjectmatterthat

isineligibleforpatentprotection.

34


Theclaimsis/arerejectedunder35U.S.C.101becausetheclaimedinventionis


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.

submission of comments regarding the july 2015 update to the interim guidance … · ·...

Documents