CAFC finds claims 2-4 of KPN's US '662 not abstract idea under Alice step 1; D. Delaware reversed

The outcome was that D. Delaware (J. Stark) was reversed:


The ’662 patent solves this problem by varying the way
check data is generated by varying the permutation applied to different
data blocks. Varying the permutation for
each data block reduces the chances that the same systematic error will
produce the same defective check data across
different data blocks. Claims 2–4 thus replace the prior art
check data generator with an improved, dynamic check
data generator that enables increased detection of systematic errors
that recur across a series of transmitted data
blocks. As with other claims we have found to be patenteligible in prior cases,
the appealed claims represent a nonabstract improvement in the functionality of an existing
technological process and not simply an abstract idea of
manipulating data. Accordingly, we reverse the district
court’s grant of Appellees’ Rule 12(c) motion that claims 2–
4 are ineligible on the pleadings.



As to "improved result":


An improved result, without more stated in the claim,
is not enough to confer eligibility to an otherwise abstract
idea. Finjan, 879 F.3d at 1305 (stating that as a “foundational patent law principle,”
“a result, even an innovative
result, is not itself patentable”). To be patent-eligible, the
claims must recite a specific means or method that solves
a problem in an existing technological process. Compare
Affinity Labs, 838 F.3d at 1258 (finding claims related to
wirelessly communicating regional broadcast content were
directed to an ineligible abstract idea because “nothing in
claim 1 . . . is directed to how to implement out-of-region
broadcasting on a cellular telephone”), and Intellectual
Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316
(Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding claims related to email filtering
were directed to an ineligible abstract idea where there was
“no restriction on how the result is accomplished” and the
“mechanism . . . is not described”), with McRO, 837 F.3d at
1307, 1313–14 (finding claims to be directed to a patenteligible
non-abstract improvement in an existing technological process because the claims recited “specific” rules
that allowed automation of a previously manual process of
lip synching three-dimensional animated characters).
In accordance with the above precedents, we conclude
that appealed claims 2–4 of the ’662 patent are patent-
eligible because they are directed to a non-abstract improvement in
an existing technological process (i.e., error
checking in data transmissions). By requiring that the permutation applied
to original data be modified “in time,”
claim 2, which is incorporated into all appealed claims, recites a specific
implementation of varying the way check
data is generated that improves the ability of prior art error detection systems
to detect systematic errors. See ’662
patent at col. 2, ll. 51–53.

(...)

Rather, to determine whether the claims
here are non-abstract, the more relevant inquiry is
“whether the claims in th[is] patent[ ] focus on a specific
means or method that improves the relevant technology or
are instead directed to a result or effect that itself is the
abstract idea and merely invoke processes and machinery.”
McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314; cf. Electric Power Group, LLC v.
Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding
claims to be directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea because
“the focus of the claims [wa]s not on such an improvement in computers as tools,
but on certain independently
abstract ideas that use computers as tools”).
In the present case, the appealed claims recite a sufficiently specific implementation
(i.e., modifying the permutation applied to the original data “in time”) of an existing
tool (i.e., check data generating device) that improves the
functioning of the overall technological process of detecting
systematic errors in data transmissions.



The bottom line



For the foregoing reasons, we hold that claims 2–4 are
not directed to an abstract idea at step one of Alice. We
have considered Appellees’ remaining arguments and find
them unpersuasive. Accordingly, we reverse the district
court’s grant of Appellees’ Rule 12(c) motion finding that
claims 2–4 are ineligible on the pleadings.