Fish Hook Invention Snagged the Bottom Under § 101

In In re Rudy, No. 2019-2301 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 24, 2020), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s ruling finding Rudy’s fish hook invention ineligible for patenting under § 101.

Rudy’s application recites a three-step method: observing the clarify of water, measuring light transmittance, and selecting a fish hook accordingly (claim 34). Applying case law and the relevant PTO Guidance, the Board found the claims were directed to an abstract idea without “significantly more” and ineligible under § 101. Rudy appealed, challenging the Board’s reliance on the Office Guidance and conclusion of patent ineligibility.

The Federal Circuit agreed with Rudy that the Office Guidance did not carry the force of law, concluding that relevant case law controls. Applying the relevant case law, however, the Federal Circuit reached the same conclusion.  Analyzing the claims under step one of the eligibility analysis, the Court concluded that claim 34 was directed to the abstract idea of selecting a fishing hook based on observed water conditions, similar to data collection and analysis. Under step two, the Court concluded the claimed steps were each abstract and did not amount to significantly more either individually or in combination. The Court found the remaining claims (reciting physical attributes of the hook and lure, or hook color) similarly ineligible. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the Board’s conclusion of patent illegibility.