PTAB Decisions Give Examples of Patent Eligible Subject Matter

Published 11/18/2015 by Marin

by Marin Cionca and Iris Kim

The Supreme Court’s decision in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2014 (Alice) resulted in much confusion about whether software-related and computer-implemented inventions are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Following this, in December of 2014, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued interim guidelines on patent subject matter eligibility. “Interim” may indicate that further guidelines are forthcoming. Until then, decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) are a useful source of guidance for what constitutes patent eligible subject matter.

Drawing similarities between cases and the hypothetical examples provided by the USPTO can be helpful for patent prosecutors and examiners.

The two-part test provided by the USPTO is a basic analysis tool, set forth in MPEP 2106. Step 1 is to determine whether the claimed invention belongs to one of the four statutory categories of invention: a process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter. If yes, Step 2 is to determine whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception, such as a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea.

Alice also provided broad examples of what may constitute an abstract idea: (1) fundamental economic practices, (2) certain methods of organizing human activities, (3) “an idea of itself,” and (4) mathematical relationships or formulae (Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2350; 2356; 2350; 2350).

Using these tests and guidelines, many claims were found by the Board and the Federal Circuit to be directed to patent ineligible matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. However, in two recent cases, the Board reversed the examiners’ decisions that the claims were directed to unpatentable abstract ideas, even though in the majority of appeals since Alice, the examiners’ rejections were affirmed.

In Ex Parte Cyriac J. Wegman III, 2015 WL 5578687 (Wegman, PTAB Sep. 18, 2015), regarding U.S. patent application number 12/765,954, the Board agreed with the Appellant that claim 1 is patentable subject matter. The Examiner had rejected the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to an abstract idea, and also under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 for lack of novelty and obviousness.

The representative claim, claim 1, is reproduced below:

1. A method for providing an empirical model of a defined space comprising steps of:
    a. defining the desired space;
    b. describing at least a portion of the defined space with multiple correlated dimensions;
    c. reducing the dimensionality of the described portion;
    d. combining the described portion with the remaining portion of the defined space;
    e. creating a hypothetical model of the defined space; and
    f. calculating coefficients for the hypothetical model according to an analysis of real and/or or virtual objects.

In their analysis of the patentability of claim 1, the Board employed the new interim guidelines issued by the USPTO following the Supreme Court’s decision in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 132 S.Ct. 1289 (2012) and Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S.Ct. 2347 (2014).

The Appellant argued that claim 1 is directed to a method, and thus, satisfies step 1 of the two-step test, which the Board agreed with. The Board then also agreed with the Appellant that claim 1 is much more specific than a broad abstract idea, as argued by the Examiner. The Appellant argued that claim 1 requires “calculating coefficients for the hypothetical model according to an analysis of real and/or or virtual objects.” Therefore, the method claimed involves the performing of an analysis, and is not simply an abstract idea.

Next, in Ex Parte Bruce Gordon Fuller, Brian Alexander Wall, Kevin George Gordon, Mark David Hobbs, and Mohamed Salehmohamed, 2015 WL 3467122 (Fuller et al., PTAB May 28, 2015), regarding U.S. patent application number 12/765,954, the Board again agreed with the Appellant that the subject matter was patent eligible. The Examiner had rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being an abstract idea, and also under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 for lack of novelty and obviousness.

An exemplary claim, claim 1, is reproduced below:

1. A method of associating a first variable and an event on a display, the method comprising:
    displaying the first variable relative to a time period on the display, resulting in a graph of the first variable;
    receiving first user input from a graphical indicator device, wherein the first user input comprises an instruction to position an indicator over a portion of a data curve of the graph corresponding to a time period of interest to the user;
    in a processor, determining if the event occurred during the time period of interest; and
    displaying the event on the display nearby the portion of the graph if the event occurred during the time period of interest.

Of note is that both of these sets of claims from Wegman and Fuller et al. involve a physical aspect. A calculation or analysis is performed in the first, and a graph display is required in the second. In Wegman, the Board stated that the method “requires performing an analysis of objects, either actual or virtual, and calculating coefficients for the model based upon that analysis. We find that these steps are sufficiently concrete as to set them outside the broad definition of abstract idea as set forth in Alice,” (Wegman, PTAB). In Fuller et al., the Appellants argued that the physical elements present “allow a user to view a graph and an event occurring during a time period of interest on the display if the processor determines that an event occurred,” and “these elements provide sufficient structure to prevent the method steps from being interpreted as too abstract,” (Fuller et al., PTAB). The Board agreed with the Appellants’ arguments, which provides a common thread between Wegman and Fuller et al., the physical components of each of the claims.

Later, these two examiners’ rejections were upheld on other grounds, but the opinions of the Board here still offer some insight into the type of claim language and subject matter that the Board finds patentable subject matter.

http://e-foia.uspto.gov/Foia/RetrievePdf?system=BPAI&flNm=fd2013008168-09-18-2015-1

http://e-foia.uspto.gov/Foia/RetrievePdf?system=BPAI&flNm=fd2013000762-05-28-2015-1

PATENT and IP Law Blog

CIONCA IP - MC1/14/2023 2:21:06 PM

Broad specification or broad claims in a patent application?
More
CIONCA IP - EC12/23/2022 9:28:33 PM

Is Mariah Carey the “Queen of Christmas”?
More
CIONCA IP - MC10/7/2022 9:33:56 PM

Rejection of Invention or Rejection of Patent Claims?
More
CIONCA IP (MC)7/13/2022 5:27:56 PM

Who is the owner of the trademark? Priority and Senior User Disputes
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)5/6/2022 5:19:00 PM

Documentarian
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)4/29/2022 4:56:42 PM

An Apple from the Apple Tree
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)4/22/2022 4:44:26 PM

Electrochemiluminescence
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)4/8/2022 4:51:08 PM

Gametime
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (BS)4/1/2022 5:05:16 PM

Screentime
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)3/25/2022 4:58:23 PM

Internet Protocol Addresses
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (BS)3/16/2022 5:00:54 PM

We TINK It Should Be Protected
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)3/4/2022 4:54:18 PM

Tinker Bell
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)2/25/2022 5:01:34 PM

Computer Memory
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)2/18/2022 4:22:47 PM

Machine or Transformation
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)2/11/2022 4:52:28 PM

Air Force 1
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)1/14/2022 4:52:22 PM

Fees and more Fees?
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)12/17/2021 4:51:21 PM

Royalty or Lowborn
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)12/10/2021 5:06:54 PM

Short-Range Wireless Networks
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)12/3/2021 4:58:39 PM

TIGHT or TITE
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)11/19/2021 4:57:10 PM

TAG Your It!
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)11/12/2021 4:56:57 PM

Medical Patents
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)11/5/2021 4:40:14 PM

Authentic Army
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)10/29/2021 4:49:28 PM

Scouting Trademarks
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)10/22/2021 4:10:03 PM

Free Speech and Trademarks
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)10/15/2021 4:55:32 PM

DNA of Patents
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)10/8/2021 5:02:03 PM

Backyard Trademarks
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)10/1/2021 4:58:25 PM

Take a seat and read about seats
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)9/24/2021 5:15:50 PM

Let's take a ride on the Segway!
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)9/17/2021 4:57:53 PM

An Apple off the Apple Tree
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)9/10/2021 4:59:08 PM

VROOM VROOM VROOM
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)9/3/2021 4:56:24 PM

On Copyrights of Annotations.
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)8/27/2021 4:55:40 PM

Rejecting Trademark Contracts
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)8/20/2021 4:42:46 PM

It's a Bratz Girl, in a Barbie World (Pt. 2)
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)8/13/2021 4:57:49 PM

Personalized Medication
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)8/6/2021 4:39:04 PM

It's a Bratz Girl, in a Barbie World
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)7/31/2021 3:21:56 AM

Ice Cream, You Scream
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)7/23/2021 4:12:50 PM

Cereal Killer
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)7/16/2021 5:00:45 PM

Buy me a ring, darling
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)7/7/2021 2:52:33 PM

Offensiveness vs Free Speech in Trademark Law
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)6/25/2021 4:45:12 PM

Woof Woof - Trademark Law
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)6/18/2021 5:29:44 PM

Forum Selection 101
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)6/11/2021 4:23:58 PM

Willful v Innocent
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)5/17/2021 2:38:30 PM

Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)4/23/2021 5:34:02 PM

Oracle Patent Problems
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)4/5/2021 5:38:23 PM

Blockchain and the Expanding US Patent Landscape
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (MC)3/24/2021 2:19:11 PM

Invention and Art Analogy
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (BR)1/19/2021 4:57:54 PM

QuikTrip West, Inc. v. Weigel Stores, Inc.
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (AP)12/7/2020 4:06:28 PM

St Jude Medical LLC v Snyders Heart Valve LLC
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SE)12/1/2020 5:07:58 PM

Allen v. Cooper, Governor of North Carolina
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (JM)10/8/2020 2:57:24 PM

Royal Crown Company Inc., Dr. Pepper/Seven Up Inc., v The Coca-Cola Company
More
CIONCA IP TEAM (SG)10/6/2020 2:42:35 PM

Apple, Inc., v. Voip-Pal.com, Inc.: Sanction Orders and Obviousness
More
CIONCA IP Team (SE)9/16/2020 4:21:45 PM

CIONCA IP Launches New Online Patent Website
More
CIONCA IP Team9/15/2020 5:11:49 PM

Comparing Apples to Apples: TTAB on In re Horizon Group USA, Inc.
More
CIONCA IP Team9/3/2020 4:30:41 PM

D2 Holdings v. House of Cards
More
CIONCA IP Team8/31/2020 12:09:17 PM

Blackbird Tech LLC, DBA Blackbird Technologies, v. Fitbit, Inc., Wahoo Fitness LLC: Obviousness
More
CIONCA IP Team8/11/2020 11:56:24 AM

Adidas AG v. Nike INC.
More
CIONCA IP Team7/20/2020 7:40:21 PM

Fitbit Inc. v. Valencell Inc.: Joint Parties in IPR Proceeding
More
CIONCA IP Team7/14/2020 7:51:31 PM

CIONCA IP Launches New Online Trademark Website
More
CIONCA IP 5/19/2020 7:36:30 PM

Uber Technologies, Inc. v. X One, Inc.: “Obvious to Try” Rationale
More
Marin Cionca4/15/2020 4:41:43 PM

The Day After COVID-19 Pandemic – Hope or Fear?
More
CIONCA IP4/13/2020 9:33:36 PM

Two of a Kind: TTAB on Shannon DeVivo v. Celeste Ortiz
More
CIONCA IP3/16/2020 8:43:10 PM

GS CleanTech Corporation v. Adkins Energy, LLC: Inequitable Conduct
More
CIONCA IP3/10/2020 7:45:30 PM

Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Google LLC, Microsoft Corporation, Microsoft Mobile Inc.
More
Marin Cionca2/9/2020 7:46:10 PM

Analogous Prior Art or Not? A critical patent obviousness question
More
CIONCA IP 1/15/2020 4:47:19 PM

FOX Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC: Presumption of Nexus
More
CIONCA IP 1/9/2020 4:43:58 PM

The Bigger Picture: TTAB’s Decision in In re James Haden, M.D., P.A.
More
CIONCA IP 12/31/2019 4:29:41 PM

The Chamberlain Group, INC. v. One World Technologies, INC.
More
Marin Cionca12/9/2019 8:07:20 PM

A “glove” approach to patent claim construction
More
11/15/2019 8:15:11 PM

Liqwd, Inc. v. L’Oreal USA, Inc.: Objective Indicia and Copying
More
CIONCA IP10/16/2019 1:28:13 PM

To Use or Not to Use: The Statutory Period of Trademark Nonuse Prior to Presumed Abandonment
More
CIONCA IP10/7/2019 5:44:50 PM

A Decision in Henny Penny Corporation v. Frymaster LLC
More
Marin Cionca9/27/2019 9:32:48 PM

Can an Online Patent Attorney File My Patent?
More
CIONCA Team Member9/4/2019 7:20:46 PM

Guangdong Alison Hi-Tech Co. v. International Trade Commission: Objective Boundaries
More
CIONCA Team Member8/19/2019 7:46:17 PM

In re Yarnell Ice Cream, LLC: Trademark Descriptiveness and Acquired Distinction
More
CIONCA Team Member8/5/2019 2:29:33 PM

Is Speculation Enough Evidence for an Appeal?: General Electric Company v. United Technologies Corporation
More
CIONCA Team Member7/5/2019 2:22:42 PM

In re: Global IP Holdings LLC: Broadening Claims Through Reissue Applications
More
CIONCA Team Member6/27/2019 7:41:52 PM

Obviousness in a Single Prior Art Instance: Game and Technology Co., LTD., v. Activision Blizzard INC., Riot Games, INC.
More
Marin Cionca6/11/2019 8:43:17 PM

Can I Successfully License My Invention?
More
CIONCA Team Member5/20/2019 8:25:57 PM

PTAB Designates Cases as Precedential
More
CIONCA Team Member5/7/2019 7:13:41 PM

The Federal Circuit Defines a Technological Invention
More
Marin Cionca4/17/2019 3:48:33 PM

What Qualifies as Proper Use in Commerce Claim in a USPTO Trademark Application?
More
CIONCA Team Member4/3/2019 7:25:37 PM

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Designates Three Decisions Precedential
More
CIONCA Team Member3/21/2019 3:49:43 PM

Defining Inherency: A Decision in Personal Web Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc.
More
Marin Cionca3/1/2019 9:36:50 PM

USPTO Director Andrei Iancu Visits Orange County!
More
CIONCA Team Member2/19/2019 7:12:46 PM

Revised Guidance by USPTO on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility and Examining Computer-Implemented Functional Claims
More
CIONCA Team Member2/5/2019 7:22:27 PM

TiVo Puts Tivoli on Pause: TTAB’s Decision in TiVo Brands LLC v. Tivoli, LLC
More
Marin Cionca1/23/2019 9:45:30 PM

Patent Law Alert: All Sales of the Invention, Including Secret Sales May Invalidate a Patent
More
CIONCA Team Member1/4/2019 4:12:21 PM

In re: Tropp: New Matter in a Continuation Can Be Relevant to Written Description Requirement
More
CIONCA Team Member12/18/2018 6:12:48 PM

Schlafly v. The Saint Louis Brewery: The Registration of Merely a Surname
More
Marin Cionca12/8/2018 8:35:06 PM

IP Assets - Procurement, Enforcement, Monetization
More
CIONCA Team Member11/19/2018 1:07:51 PM

The Appeals Process
More
CIONCA Team Member10/16/2018 6:50:31 PM

A Double-Edged Sword: Benefit of Priority or Longer Patent Term
More
Marin Cionca10/1/2018 7:42:12 PM

Can I Register a Color as a Trademark or Service Mark?
More
CIONCA Team Member9/17/2018 4:33:20 PM

Trademarks and Likelihood of Confusion: Federal Circuit’s Decision in In re: Detroit Athletic Co.
More
Staff8/31/2018 7:26:58 PM

Patent Claim Interpretation By Federal Circuit's on Facebook's Contiguous Image Layout
More
Staff8/16/2018 4:24:01 PM

Correcting or Changing a Patent After Issue Through the Central Reexamination Unit
More
Marin Cionca7/31/2018 6:50:05 PM

My patent expired? Can I still sue for patent infringement?
More
7/3/2018 7:44:33 PM

Impax Laboratories Inc. v Lannett Holdings Inc. on Claim Invalidation
More
CIONCA IP5/17/2018 9:54:58 PM

Marin Cionca Presents at OCIPLA May 2018 Luncheon
More
5/4/2018 7:37:51 PM

The Hague System for Protection of International Designs
More
CIONCA Staff4/20/2018 5:25:25 PM

USPTO Changes Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility in View of Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.
More
CIONCA Staff4/13/2018 9:10:04 PM

It Take Two to Tango: Knowles v. Iancu, a Standing Dispute in a PTAB Decision
More
3/20/2018 12:50:05 PM

Andrei Iancu - New Director of the USPTO
More
3/8/2018 1:25:46 PM

Proceed with Caution: Consider Carefully when Narrowing Claims for Allowance
More
CIONCA Team2/16/2018 4:07:48 PM

Fashion and Intellectual Property
More
CIONCA Team1/17/2018 8:12:06 PM

A Fork in the Road: Production or Protection?
More
1/2/2018 7:47:09 PM

The Lanham Act: Disparagement Provision Violates the First Amendment
More
12/26/2017 6:04:25 PM

CIONCA Sets Foot in San Francisco
More
12/1/2017 8:01:27 PM

An Introduction to Patent Cooperation Treaty Applications
More
11/17/2017 1:24:20 PM

An Introduction to Patent Searches
More
11/10/2017 6:47:44 PM

An Introduction to Design Patent Applications
More
Staff11/3/2017 4:20:04 PM

An Introduction to Provisional Patent Applications
More
Staff9/28/2017 7:27:22 PM

CIONCA
More
staff9/27/2017 5:12:07 PM

CIONCA - Patent and Trademark Law Attorney
More
staff9/27/2017 5:00:12 PM

Claim Indefiniteness During Patent Pre-Issuance: Define Your Invention, Not Just Your Audience
More
staff9/15/2017 9:33:30 PM

cionca
More
CIONCA Staff8/20/2017 3:16:11 PM

CIONCA on Patents: Think Twice Before Suing for Patent Infringement and Fight Back when Unreasonably Sued
More
CIONCA - Staff8/9/2017 5:39:58 PM

Patent Case Study: The Novelty Of An “Invention” Is NOT Enough To Make It Patentable
More
CIONCA - Staff6/28/2017 8:26:07 PM

Patent Law: Conditions Precedent May Expose Method Claim to Broad Interpretation During Prosecution
More
CIONCA - Staff6/15/2017 5:32:14 PM

Patent Law: Challenging the Patent Claim Definiteness Requirement
More
Marin Cionca4/25/2017 9:48:49 PM

Monetization of Patents: How to Make Money with Patents
More
Marin Cionca2/21/2017 12:30:52 AM

Software Patent Law Update: Federal Circuit Finds Graphical User Interface Patentable
More
Marin Cionca9/15/2016 9:47:39 PM

Patent Law Alert: Federal Circuit Opens Door for More Software Patents
More
Marin Cionca9/6/2016 9:26:12 PM

Patent Case Law: New Example of Software as Patentable Subject Matter
More
Iris Kim, PhD6/1/2016 7:04:50 PM

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board Designates Five More Decisions as Precedential
More
Marin Cionca5/17/2016 8:57:23 PM

Patent Claims Rejection Based on Inherency
More
Iris Kim, PhD3/25/2016 8:34:14 PM

Challenging a Claim’s Validity with Different Standards of Claim Construction
More
I. Kim PhD2/26/2016 8:47:51 PM

The U.S. Supreme Court Will Review Claim Construction Standards and Institution Decision Reviewability.
More
Marin Cionca2/16/2016 6:34:53 PM

In IPRs, patentees have to show that substitute patent claims are patentable
More
M. Cionca and I. Kim2/4/2016 5:55:16 PM

Software Inventions Are Still Patentable!
More
Marin1/28/2016 9:15:16 PM

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board Designates Two Decisions as Precedential
More
Marin1/28/2016 9:10:56 PM

How Unpredictability Can Affect Obviousness Challenges
More
Marin11/19/2015 2:13:05 PM

An Innovator’s Dilemma: Design or Utility Patent?
More
Marin11/18/2015 7:31:35 PM

When Is a Thesis Prior Art?
More
Marin11/18/2015 6:15:40 PM

Covered Business Method Claims Are Not Required to Particularly Target Financial Industry
More
Marin11/18/2015 6:11:11 PM

PTAB Decisions Give Examples of Patent Eligible Subject Matter
More

Marin Cionca, Esq.

Registered Patent Attorney

USPTO Reg. No. 63899

VERIFY

CONTACT INFO

TOLL FREE 800-454-1360
GET IN TOUCH
SEE MORE CONTACT INFO

About CIONCA® IP Law firm: We are an Orange County, CA based boutique intellectual property firm with a focus on patent and trademark application, prosecution, opinion, licensing and IP enforcement services, offering its IP services primarily at flat fee rates. We serve local OC clients, as well as clients throughout US and international clients.

HOME

Let’s talk!

We’d love to hear from you…we just need a little info
about your plans to take over the world!

P.S…Feel free to call us! (800)985-9198

PTAB Decisions Give Examples of Patent Eligible Subject Matter

PATENT and IP Law Blog

CONTACT INFO

Let’s talk!

QuickContact 24/7

1-800-454-1360