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 Defends the Alice/Mayo Test

September 7, 2022

Authored and Edited by Yinan Liu, Ph.D.; 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.

Tags

patentable subject matter, 35 U.S.C. § 101, Administrative Procedure Act (APA)

Related Practices

Appeals, Issues, and Legal Strategy

Federal Circuit and Supreme Court Appeals

Related Offices

Boston, MA

Washington, DC

Contacts

Yinan Liu, Ph.D.
Associate
Boston, MA
+1 617 646 1652
Email
Christina Ji-Hye Yang
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4465
Email
Elizabeth D. Ferrill
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4445
Email

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.

Related Insights

Conference

IAM Live: Navigating the UPC 2026

November 4, 2026

Paris

Lecture

2026 Donald R. Dunner Endowed Lecture

October 27, 2026

Washington, DC

Conference

2026 FCBA Global Series Fall Session

October 14-16, 2026

Dublin

Webinar

PTAB Developments and Their Impact on Parallel Litigation: Strategic Considerations

August 26, 2026

Webinar

Webinar

A Year of Change for Post-Grant Patent Challenges: Key PTAB and CRU Developments, and Strategic Implications

August 19, 2026

Webinar

At the PTAB Blog

IPR and PGR Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in May 2026

July 31, 2026

Articles

The PTAB Under the Squires Administration: New Trends in Discretionary Denial and Implications for Corporate Practice

July 2026

Articles

Blaker v. NetScout Systems: A Narrow Reading of the Pen Register and Trap and Trace Provisions of the California Invasion of Privacy Act in California State Court

July 29, 2026

IP Updates

Too Concrete to Fail: Ceiva’s Guidance on the Use of Sufficiently Concrete Structures to Overcome Section 101 Rejections

July 28, 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