In re Greenstein: merely having a successful new product is not enough to overcome 101

from the decision:



Mr. Greenstein argues that the limitation “utiliz[ing] a
projected amount of income at a future date for at least one
person” provides the requisite inventive concept. He contends
this limitation was the basis for the successful commercial launch of a new product, demonstrating its
material advantages to persons in the relevant market.
Mr. Greenstein’s contentions are unavailing.
Even if Mr. Greenstein is correct that the claimed utilization of a projected future income was the basis for a
commercially successful product, this is insufficient to
transform the claims into a patent-eligible application. It
is well-settled that a claimed invention’s “use of the ineligible concept
to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention ‘significantly
more’ than that ineligible concept.” BSG Tech LLC v.
Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151
(Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[A] claim for a new abstract idea is still
an abstract idea.”).