Tuesday, December 23, 2014

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.


Post a Comment

<< Home