Pro se appellant GOPALAN only claimed a result, and loses at the CAFC

Claiming a result:




The claims only generically recite “a metric,” “an optimization technique,” an “optimization parameter,” “a value
of a number of independent measures,” and “a value for a
confidence measure.” None of these variables are defined,
and the claims do not concretely limit these variables such
that the claims do not merely claim the result of obtaining
a “substantially optimal combination of true positives and
false positives” in the data set.
Thus, the claims do not “embody a concrete solution to
a problem” because they lack “the specificity required to
transform a claim from one claiming only a result to one
claiming a way of achieving it.” Interval Licensing, 896
F.3d at 1343 (citing SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 890
F.3d 1016, 1021–22 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (collecting cases)).
Indeed, the claims provide result-oriented limitations like
others we have held to be directed to abstract ideas.