September 7, 2022
Edited by Christina Ji-Hye Yang; Elizabeth D. Ferrill
In In re Killian, No. 2021-2113 (Fed. Cir. August 23, 2022), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s rejection of pending claims of U.S. Patent Application No. 14/450,042 (“’042 application”) under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
The ’042 application is directed to a system and method for determining eligibility for social security disability insurance benefits through a computer network. During prosecution, the examiner argued that all pending claims are directed to an abstract idea and lack any additional element beyond generic recitation of computer functionalities. The Board affirmed.
The Federal Circuit affirmed. At Alice step 1, the Federal Circuit held that the claims are directed to an abstract idea of collecting information from various sources and understanding the meaning of that information, which can be performed by a human. That these steps are performed on a generic computer did not save the claims at Alice step 2.
The Federal Circuit rejected all of the appellant’s arguments. First, there was no violation of Administrative Procedure Act from “arbitrary and capricious” law because the Board followed the binding Supreme Court precedent. Second, the Federal Circuit refused to provide a single definition of abstract idea, noting that the case law provides sufficient guidance. Third, there was no violation of the patentee’s due process rights because comparing the patentee’s case to earlier § 101 cases is “the classic common law methodology for creating law.” Fourth, the search for “inventive concept” at Alice step 2 is not improper because it never required the patentee to prove “degree of skill and ingenuity” beyond those of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Fifth, the “mental steps” doctrine has not been repudiated in modern patent law. Sixth, the Board’s finding that the claims recited generic computer functions was supported by substantial evidence.
Copyright © 2022 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.
Prosecution First Blog
January 27, 2023
Seminar
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions: Patent Law in Europe and the US
January 26, 2023
Oslo
Articles
Strategic Intellectual Property Considerations for Protecting AI Innovations in Life Sciences
January 2023
Articles
Patent Infringement: When Is a Product Sold “Within the United States”?
November/December 2023
Prosecution First Blog
PTA and After-Allowance Papers: Damned If You Do, Damned If You Don’t?
January 20, 2023
Prosecution First Blog
Federal Circuit Clarifies the Standard of Review for Invalidity Challenges
January 13, 2023
Due to international data regulations, we’ve recently updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
The Finnegan UPC Hub is a one-stop shop for our insights related to the Unified Patent Court (UPC).