PRINT, PDF, EMAIL

The proposed claims recited patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C.S. § 101 regardless of who bore the burden to prove the eligibility and patentability of the proposed claims. To determine patent eligibility, the court applied a two-step process. Case law referred to step one as the “abstract idea” step and step two as the “inventive concept” step. The proposed claims embodied an abstract idea that merely used a computer and generic components as tools to collect data and generate reports. This was insufficient under step one. When viewed as an ordered combination, the proposed claims recited no more than the sort of “perfectly conventional” generic computer components employed in a customary manner that the court had held insufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Thus, the proposed claims failed step two as well. The appellate court affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.