直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB’s Rejection of Patent Application as Abstract

March 18, 2021

Authored and Edited by Eric S Magleby; Christina Ji-Hye Yang; Esther H. Lim; Elizabeth D. Ferrill

In In re Bd. of Trs. of the Leland Stanford Junior Univ., No. 2020-1012 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 11, 2021), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s rejection of a patent application under 35 U.S.C. § 101, holding that it claimed a patent-ineligible mental process combined with mathematical algorithms.

The application claims a method for resolving haplotype phase for determining the parents from which genes are inherited. The USPTO rejected the claims, finding that the recited steps of “receiving” data and “determining,” “storing,” and “providing” information constituted a mental process that could be performed within the human mind, together with mathematical algorithms. The first claim also recited a “computer system comprising a processor and a memory” in each step of the method. The USPTO noted that the claims recited only generic computer components insufficient to make the claims patent eligible. On appeal, the PTAB affirmed.

The Federal Circuit affirmed, stating the claims were merely a mathematical algorithm and did not provide a concrete application for the haplotype data. The Federal Circuit noted the absence of a specialized computer or components and held that an improvement in the process of resolving haplotype phase does not “transform[] the claims into a patent eligible application.”

Tags

35 U.S.C. § 101, patent application, patentability, patentable subject matter, validity

For more information

  • In re Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University

Related Practices

Federal Circuit and Supreme Court Appeals

Patent Office Invalidation Proceedings

Related Industries

AI, Electronics, and Information Technology

Electrical and Computer Technology

Related Offices

Washington, DC

Contacts

Christina Ji-Hye Yang
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4465
Email
Esther H. Lim
Partner and Chief Community Officer
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4121
Email
Elizabeth D. Ferrill
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4445
Email

Copyright © 2021 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. 


DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.

Related Insights

Lecture

IPIC/McGill Summer IP Course 2026: Understanding Trademarks

July 14, 2026

Montreal

Conference

7th International Conference on Biofuels and Bioenergy

June 25-26, 2026

Edinburgh

Charitable

Bridges From School to Work Gala 2026

June 22, 2026

Washington, DC

Lecture

Munich Licensing Summer Course 2026

June 18-19, 2026

Munich

Conference

IPBC Global 2026

June 15-17, 2026

San Diego

Conference

2026 Copyright Society Annual Meeting

June 14-16, 2026

Louisville

Conference

17th Summit on Biosimilars & Innovator Biologics

June 2-3, 2026

New York

Articles

Article_D.-Mass-Patent-Litigation-Update-October-2024

D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update: April 2026

June 1, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Consistency Is Key – USPTO Issues Three New Informative Decisions

May 29, 2026

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP