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

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Staying True to the Specification: Federal Circuit Vacates Preliminary Injunction Based on Unsupported Claim Constructions

September 16, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

The Proof Is in the Priority: Director Squires Addresses Antedating and Prior-Art Qualification

September 14, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Federal Circuit PTAB Appeal Statistics for June and July 2026

September 9, 2026

Articles

A “Side Bet” Option Does Not Create a Live Case or Controversy on Appeal

September 9, 2026

European IP Blog

The Decision in G 1/25: A More Relaxed Approach to Description Amendments in Europe?

3 September 2026

Webinar

PTAB Developments and Their Impact on Parallel Litigation: Strategic Considerations

August 26, 2026

Webinar

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