Patent Riffs – More Links to McRO Insights

Here are some links to further discussion of the recebt McRO decision:

Gone Enfishing: Software Patentees Reel in Another Huge Win at the Federal Circuit | M.CROWELL
“Consequently, the Federal Circuit provides a more structured test to determine whether patent claims are directed to an abstract idea: do the patent claims focus on (i) a specific unconventional means or method that improves the relevant technology or (ii) are the claims instead directed to a result or effect that itself is an abstract idea merely invoking generic processes and machinery? If the answer is yes to the first question, the claims are not directed to an abstract idea and qualify as patent eligible subject matter under Section 101. If, however, the answer is yes to the second question, the inquiry continues to step two of the Alice test as the claims may be directed to an abstract idea.”

Widely Watched Federal Circuit McRO Decision Holds Certain Software Claims to Be Patent Eligible | M.JONESDAY
“Key to the Federal Circuit’s holding was that there are other alternatives to the claimed method (e.g., rules that only evaluated individual phonemes). Thus, although the representative claim was not directed to tangible material, it claimed patent-eligible subject matter because it did not preempt the underlying broader abstract concept.”

McRo v. Bandai: Evidence related to claimed improvement is key to whether claims are directed to an abstract idea | FROSTBROWNTODD
“This opinion has been hotly anticipated by the patent community… and, now that it has been issued, it illustrates the importance of focusing both on the features that provide an invention’s improvement over the prior art and on the presence or absence of evidence in determining what a claim is “directed to.””

McRO v. Namco – Fed. Cir. Reverses s. 101 Invalidation of Animation Method Patents | NATLAWREVIEW
“The Fed. Cir. is demonstrating its willingness to try to define what is, and what is not, an “abstract idea.” At the least, it is rejecting the “claim husking” approach of the district court and giving appropriate weight to claims representing a “technological advance”.”

McRo: Preemption Matters After All | BILSKIBLOG
Discussing the ineligibility of ‘goals’: “This articulation of the abstract idea exception is in line with the various statements that patent claims should recite “how” a particular process achieves the desired result…In Vehicle Intelligence…the court held that “None of the claims at issue are limited to a particular kind of impairment, explain how to perform either screening or testing for any impairment, specify how to program the ‘expert system’ to perform any screening or testing, or explain the nature of control to be exercised on the vehicle in response to the test results.” Thus, McRo firmly articulates the framing of the abstract idea analysis as whether the claims simply recite a desired result, or a particular way of achieving the desired result. ”

McRo decision gives software/computer-based patents a big boost | BLOG.IP
“Then the Court stated that “[w]hether at step one or step two of the Alice test, in determining the patentability of a method, a court must look to the claims as an ordered combination, without ignoring the requirements of the individual steps. The specific, claimed features of these rules allow for the improvement realized by the invention.” Id. As a result, the claims could not be abstracted to a simple gist.”