CAFC affirms DNJ Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal in CET/ Diebold case; "scanner" argument fails

In the CONTENT EXTRACTION AND TRANSMISSION LLC [CET] case, the CAFC affirmed a dismissal in the District Court of New Jersey ultimately based on ineligible subject matter under 35 USC 101. 

Within the discussion

An invention is patent-eligible

if it claims a“new and useful

process, machine, manufacture, or composition of

matter.”  35 U.S.C. §101.

The Supreme Court, however, has long interpreted

§101 and itsstatutory predecessors

to contain an implicit exception: “

laws of nature, natural

phenomena, and abstract ideas”

are not patentable.

AliceCorp. Pty Ltd . v. CLS Bank Int’l,

573 U.S. __,134 S. Ct.2347, 2354(2014).

We focus here

on whether the claims

of the asserted patents

fall within the excluded category

ofabstract ideas.

Applying Mayo/Alice step one, we

agree with the dis-

trict court that the claims

of the asserted patents

are drawn to

the abstract idea of

1) collecting data, 

2) recognizing certain data

within the collected data set, and 

3) storing that recognized data

in a memory

.

CET attempts to distinguish its claims from those

found to be abstract in  Alice and other cases

by showing that its claims

require not only a computer but also an

additional machine — a scanner.

 

(...)

 

There is no “inventive concept” in

CET’s use of a generic scanner

and computer to perform well-

understood, routine, and

conventional activities

commonly used in industry

.

See Alice , 134 S. Ct. at 2359.