Patents; m o tion to d ism iss f or patent-ineligi b l e subject m atter; 35

U.S.C. § 101 ( 2012); w h e t her plaintif f ’ s claim s are directed to an abstract idea 

# In th e United States Court of Federal Cl aims

No. 17-825 (Filed: January 19, 2018)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORP.,

Plaintiff

,

v.

THE UNITED STATES,

Defendant.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

ORDER

This i s a c laim f

o r patent inf

ringem e nt. Plaintif

f

, Science Applications
International Corp. (“SAIC”), claim s that the g overnm ent has inf ringed f o ur patents b y entering into contr a c t s w i th plaintif f ’s c om petitors f or the

procurem ent of s pecialized h e ads up d isplay s (“HUD”) and night vision goggles t hat allegedly use SAIC’s patented technology

. Def endant m ove s t o dism i ss f or f ailure to s tate a claim under Rule 12(b)( 6 ) o f the Rules of the
United States Court of Federal Claim s (“RCFC”), contending that plaintif f ’s patents claim

ineligible subject m atter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (2012).

At the m otion t o dism iss stage, w e assum e that the f acts as stated i n the

com plaint are true and d r a w a ll reasonable inf erences in f

avor o f the nonm oving party

. D ef

endant’s m otion raises a question of law: whether p laintif f ' s patent claim s r ecite paten t

- e l i gible subject m atter. A ccenture Global Servs.,
GmbH v. Guidewire S

oftware, Inc.

, 728 F.3d 1336, 1340–41 ( Fed. Cir. 2013).
Section 101 sets out the list of patentable subject m atter: “ a ny new a nd usef ul

process, m achine, m anuf acture, or com

p osition of m a tter, or a n y n e w andusef ul im provem e nt thereof

.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. A lthough t his statutory grant
is expansive, the Suprem e Court has held that s e ction 101 is subject to im plicit exceptions f

or “laws o f n a t u re, natural phenom enon, and abstract ideas,”
which are not patentabl e

. Alice Corp. P ty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l

, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014). These three concepts are ineligible f or patenting because they f orm t he “ basic building blocks of h um a n ingenuity .” Alice

, 1 34 S. Ct. at
2354. Claim ing a law of nature, natural phenom ena, or abstract idea w o uld

preem pt its u se in f

uture i nventions, abusing the purpose of p a t e n t l aw and
ham pering t he process of hum an in n o v a tion. Id. (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc. , 566 U.S. 66, 71 (2012)).

T h e S uprem e Court has s et out t he two-part Alice/Mayo t est f o r determ ining whether a patent c laim s ineligible subject m atter. First, this court

m ust determ ine whether the patent i s directed to a patent-ineligible co n c e p t,

su c h a s a n a b s t r act idea. Id. at 2355 (citing Mayo

, 566 U.S. at 72-73). If the
patent is directed to a pate n t -ineligible c o ncept, the second s tep is to
determ ine, c o n sidering t he claim s “both individually

, and ‘as an ordered

com bination,’” whether the patent claim s suf f iciently transf

orm the ineligible subject m atter with an inventive concept. Id. (quoting Mayo

, 566 U.S. at 72- 73).

The Federal Circuit has acknowledged overlap in the two steps in the Alice/Mayo test, b ut has em phasized, “[ T]he f

irst-stage f

ilter is a m eaningf

ul

one, som etim e s ending the inquiry

. ” Elec. Power Grp., L L C v

. A l s tom S.A.

, 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The “directed to” inquiry is not sim ply asking whether an ineligible concept is involved in the p atent c laim s , because
all inventions “em

body

, use, ref

l ect, rest upon, or appl y ” i n e l i g ible concepts

to som e extent, but rather i f t h e p a t e nt is claim ing the abstract i dea itself

. Mayo

, 5 66 U.S. at 72-73; see also Enfish, L L C v

. M icrosoft Corp.

, 822 F .3d 1327, 1 335 (Fed. Cir. 2 016). The f irst step “calls upon us to look at the ‘ f ocus of the c laim ed advance o v er the prior art’ to determ ine if the claim ’s ‘character

as a whole’ is d irected to excluded subject m atter.” Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC

v. DIRECTV Dig. LLC

, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed. C ir. 2016) ( quoting G enetic
Techs. L td. v

. M

erial L.L.C.

, 818 F.3d 1369, 1375 (Fed. C ir. 2016); Internet

Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc.

, 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
Under Alice/Mayo step one, when determ ining if the claim ’s character is to

preem pt the i neligible c o n c e p t o r if the claim is suf f iciently lim ited, the

F e d e r al Circuit considers t he advance or a d vantages t hat the claim presents
when c om

pared to prior art and reads t h e c l a i m l a nguage in l ight of the specif i cation. Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States , 850 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir.

22017); Enfish

, 822 F.2d a t 1335, 1337; Genetic Techs. Ltd.

, 818 F .3d at 1375-

76. In a ddition to the claim ’s language and the specif ication, the f

irst step calls

f or com paring the claim s at issue to claim s that have been f ound e l igible or ineligible in prior cases. E nfish , 822 F.2d at 1334.

W ith that f

r am ework

, w e t

u rn t o the parties’ argum e nts regarding patent eligibility f

or e ach of the f

our patents at i ssue and apply the A lice/Mayo firststage f ilter to the p a tent c laim s. Both de f e n d a n t i n i ts m otion to dism iss and plaintif f i n its response put f

orth argum ents that apply t o all f our patent c laim s. W e theref ore will set out the claim l anguage f r om each patent claim analy zed

in the brief

ing bef ore considering the parties’ argum ents and c om paring each patent’s claim language to claim s f orm erly f ound eligible or ineligible by the
Federal Circuit.

I. The SERVAL Patents

The patents at issue here a r e U.S. Patent No. 7

, 7 8 7

, 0 1 2 (“the ‘012 Patent”), U.S. Patent N o. 8,817,103 (“the ‘103 P atent”), U .S. Patent No. 9,229,230 (“the ‘ 2 3 0 P a t ent”) and U.S. Patent No. 9,618,752 (“the ‘752 Patent”) (collectively

, the “SERVAL p a t e nts”). The f our patents f

orm t wo patent f am ilies due to the interrelatedness of t he applications. The f irst patent
f am ily is f o rm ed b y t h e ‘ 012 Patent and t he ‘ 103 Patent; the ‘103 Patent i s a division of the ‘ 012 Patent. T he second patent f am ily is f orm ed by the ‘230

Patent and the ‘ 752 Patent; the ‘752 Patent is a c ontinuation of the ‘230 Patent.
The f our i ndependent c laim s the parties analy zed in brief

ing a re claim 1 of

‘012 Patent, claim 1 of t he ‘103 Patent, claim 15 of the ‘230 Patent, and claim
7 of the ‘752 Patent. 1

1 T he parties also dispute w hich claim s a r e r epresentative. In its c om plaint,

SAIC argues that all f

our patents have been inf

ringed, but “at least” claim 1 of

‘012 Patent, claim 1 of the ‘103 Patent, claim 15 of the ‘230 Patent, and claim

7 of the ‘752 Patent. Plaintif f discusses these f

our independent claim s in its

com plaint without discussing the other independent claim s f ou n d i n i t s patents.
Def endant designated the f

our independent claim s r ef erenced in the com

plaint

as representative. Def

.’s Mot. to Dism iss 21 n.9, n.11. Plaintif f disputes this designation and argues that all independent c laim s should be e valuated when assessing whether the patents claim e ligible subject m atter. A rep r e s e n tative

claim is one t hat is determ inative of the issue bef ore t he court. In re Am. Acad. Of Sci. T

ech Ctr.

, 367 F

. 3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2 004). W e f ind it

3A. Patent Fam ily One

The f irst patent f

am ily consists of the ‘012 Patent and the ‘ 103 Patent.
The ‘012 Patent is entitled “Sy stem and Method f or Video Im age Registration

in a Heads Up Display

. ” Pl.’s Com pl. E x. A (‘012 Patent). I t issued on A ugust 31, 2010, with nineteen claim s, all of w hich are m ethod cla i m s. The independent claim s a re claim 1 and claim 17. Claim 1 o f the ‘ 0 1 2 P a t ent
recites:

1. A m ethod of registering video im a ges with a n underly in g visual f ield com prising the steps of

:

(1) determ i ning a source orientation of a video s ource p roviding

a video f eed containing data f

o r a series o f video i m ages representing portions of

a visual f ield;

(2) d e t e r m ining a display o rientation of a transparent display overlay ing th e visual f

ield, wherein the video source and the
transparent display are ind e p endently m ovable a b out m ultiple axes; and

(3) display ing t h e video im ages in p ositions on the transparent display t hat overlay portions o f the visual f ield represented by the display ed video im ages,

whe r e i n boundaries of the display ed video im ages are in registration with boundaries o f portions of the v isual f i eld represented by

the display ed video im ages.

‘012 Patent col. 9-10.

The ‘1 0 3 Patent is likewise entitled “Sy stem and Method f or Video

Im age Registration in a Heads Up Display .” Pl.’s Com pl. Ex. B (‘103 Patent).

unnecessary to designate the representative claim s at this s t a g e , b e cause evaluating the f

our independent claim s discussed in the brief ing is suf f icient

to hold that plaintif

f ’s patents claim eligible subject m atter. W e encourage the parties to stipulate to the representative claim s.

4T h e ‘ 1 03 Patent is a division of the ‘012 P atent and shares a com m on

specif i cation with the ‘012 Patent. I t issued on August 26, 2014, with twelve
claim s. The only independent claim is sy stem claim 1. Claim 1 of the ‘103
Patent recites:

1. A sy stem com

prising:

a video cam era adapted to provid e , i n a v i d e o f eed, data f

or a series of video im ages representing portions of a visual f ield;

a f irst orientation sensor adapted to detect a n orientation of the
video cam e ra;

a heads up d i splay (HUD) adapted f or viewing of the visual f

i eld by a user of the sy stem wherein the H U D c o mp rises a transparent display

, and wherein the HUD and t he v ideo cam era are independently

m ovable about m

u ltiple axes;

a second o r i e n t a t i on sensor a dapted t o detect an orientation of the HUD; and

a com puter adapted to receive sensor data f rom the f i r s t and
second orientation sensors, to r eceive the video f eed f rom the
video cam era, and to display the video i ma g e s , on the
transparant [ sic] display and based on the received sensor data,

in positions that overlay portions of the visual f i eld represented by the display ed v ideo i ma g e s wherein boundaries of the display ed vid e o i m a g es are in registration with boundaries of portions of t he visual f

ield r e presented by the display e d video

im ages, a n d wherein the com puter is adapted to determ i ne a

source orientation of the video c am era, a nd determ i ne a display
orientation of

the transparent display

.

‘103 Patent col. 10.

B. Patent Fam ily Tw o

T h e second patent f

am ily consists of the ‘230 Patent and th e ‘ 7 5 2

Patent. The ‘230 Patent is entitled “Sy stem and Method f o r V i d e o Im age Registration and/or Pro v i d i n g Supplem ental Data i n a Heads Up Display .”

5Pl.’s Com p l. Ex. C (‘230 Patent). It i ssued on January 5, 2016, with f o rty -two
claim s. Sy stem claim 1

, m e t h o d c l a i m 1 5

, and non-transitory m achine-readable

m edium 29 are independent claim s. Claim 15 of the ‘230 Patent recites:

15. A m ethod, com

prising:

(a) r eceiving video im ages f rom a f i rst video source a nd f

rom a second v ideo sou r ce representing portions o f an external
environm ent;

(b) receiving m otion data indicative of m otion of the f ir s t and second video sources;

( c ) i d e n t i f

y ing, based on the received m otion data, a part of a f irst video source im age that potentially represents a portion of
the external environm ent represented in a part of a second video
source im age;

(d) evaluating, based on a com parison o f data f

rom the f irst and
second video source im ages, the i dentif ication perf

orm ed in step (c); and

( e ) d i splay ing at least a portion of the f i rst video source im age and at least a portion of the second video source im age such t hat
the second video source im age p ortion overlay s a corresponding region of the f

irst video source im age portion, w h e r e i n t he

corre s p o nding r egion represents a portion of the external
environm ent represented in the second video source portion.

‘230 Patent col. 26.

The ‘752 Patent is also entitled “Sy s tem and Method f or Video Im age Registration and/or Providing Supplem ental Data in a H e a d s Up Display .”
Pl.’s Com pl. Ex. D (‘752 Patent). The ‘ 752 Patent is a c o ntinuation of the ‘230

Patent and shares a com m on specif i cation w ith the ‘230 Patent. It i s s u ed on April 11, 2017, with eighteen claim s

. It issued with three i ndependent claim s:

sy stem claim 1, m ethod claim 7, and non-transitory m achine-readable m edium
claim 13. Claim

7 of the ‘752 Patent recites:

7. A m e thod com

prising:

6receiving f irst video data of im ages representing portions of an external e nvironm ent w i t h i n a f i eld of v iew of a f

i rst video

source;

receiving s econd video data of i m ages representing portions of
the external environm ent within a f i e l d of v iew of a second video source;

receiving f

irst mo t i o n data corresponding to the f irst video

source an d s e c o n d m otion data corresponding to the second video source;

identif y ing, based o n the received f irst m otion d a t a a n d the
received second m otion data, a region of a f i rst im age g enerable

f rom the f

i r s t video data f

or com parison with a region o f a second im age generable f rom the second video data;

com paring data corresponding t o t h e identif i ed region o f the

f irst im age and da t a corresponding to the region of the second

im age; selecting, based on the c o mp a r i n g , a part of the f irst

im age and a part of the seco n d im age that represent a sam e portion of the external environm ent; and

display ing at least a portion of the f irst i m age and the sele c ted
part o f the second im age such that the selected p a r t o f t h e second im age replaces the selected part of the f irst i m age and is

in registration with regions o f the f irst i m a ge s u rrounding the selected part of

the f irst im age.

‘752 Patent col. 26.

II. Section 101 Patent Claim Analy s i s

D e f e n d a n t c ontends that SAIC’s patents claim the abstract idea of superim posing a video im a ge i n a location on a d isplay

, thereby preem pting

f uture innovation in how im ages can be m anipulated t o appear in t he sam e f ield of vision. Plaintif

f responds that its patents claim me t hods and sy stem s of a ccurately positioning im ages f rom two independently m ovable sources by using orientation and m otion sensors and data in an unconventional way

. Af ter

7considering the character o f each claim in light of its s pecif ication, we f

ind that plaintif

f ’s patent claim s are not directed to an abstract idea.

The governm e nt’s argum ents r e g a r d ing the f i rst and second patent
f am ily can be set out together. Def endant argues that the f

irst patent f

am i ly
claim s are directed to the abstract idea o f superim p osing video im ages based

on relative orientation. Def endant contends that the ‘012 and the ‘ 103 P atents
claim language lacks a concrete structural elem ent, a t i e t o a particular

m ach i n e o r transf

orm ative process, or an im provem ent in the c o m

puter technology

. Instead, the governm ent argues, the f i rs t patent f

am ily claim s recite generic com

puter com

ponents and calcu l a t i ons without a required

com bi n a t i on f

or im plem entation or som e other u nique e l em ent. The ‘012

Patent claim 1

, the governm ent arg u e s , a m ounts to a m onopoly on a process that can b e perf

orm ed by the hum an m ind, nam ely “the age-old p r a c t i c e o f looking at a target, t hrough a weapon s ight or telescope

. . . while looking with
the other ey e sim

u ltaneously outside of the weapon sight or telescope

. . . .”
Def .’s Mot. to Dism iss 23.

The g overnm ent argues th a t t h e s econd patent f am ily claim s are directed to the abstract idea of s uperim posing video i m a ges based on relative

m otion data. The governm ent contends t hat t he additional f eature of

m inim izing the need f

or m anual sensor recalibration do e s n ot alter the
character of the claim s f rom superim

positi o n o f im ages. I t argues t hat plaintif f ’ s c laim s of

f er only well-known, patent-ineligible calculations to

accom plish t he r esult of the claim s, w i thout providing a ny patentable structure or algorithm

.

SAIC responds t hat none of t he claim s are directed t o the u n d erly ing
idea of superim

posing i m ages. It contend s t hat claim ing the m ethod and

sy stem of registering im a ges based on the u se of orientation and m otion

sens o r s d o e s n o t constitute an abstract i dea, avoiding preem ption of other

m ethods of registering im ages. P l aintif f alleges that its p atents f ocus on solving a problem in the technology available f or r eg i s t ering im a g es by

com bining orientation s e n sors a nd d ata, inertial sensors and m otion data, boundary registration, and independently m o vable com ponents. SAIC argues that patent law does not require a n im provem ent

in the com

puter or a tie to a specif i c m a chine or apparatus, but that a patentee m ay i n s t e a d p atent an unconventional solution t o a problem in a m ethod previously e m ploy ed in the industry

.

8At a high level, all f our cl a i ms u n d o ubtedly involve the idea of superim position of im ages. But the Federal C i r c u i t has a d m onished t hat just
because the claim s involve an abstract idea d o e s n ot m ean that they are directed to an abstract idea. Rapid Litig. Mgmt. Ltd. v. CellzDirect, Inc. , 827
F.3d 1042, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The question here is w hether the claim s are directed to th e idea of superim posing one im age on another or whether the
claim s “recite m ore than a m ere result.” F i njan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys

. , Inc.,

2018 W L 341882, *3 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 10, 2018).

F i r st, bef ore com paring plaintif

f ’s claim language to other elig i b l e subject m atter, the claim s of f er a n advance bey ond t he prior art. The ‘012

Patent claim 1 represents an advance over the prior art b y detecting orientation
of a video and display

, independently m oveable about m ultiple axes, i n order

to register im ag e s w i t h i n accurate boundaries. The third step of t he ‘012

m ethod claim t i e s together orientation d etection with the increased accuracy of ho w i m ages a re display ed, avoiding blurred, duplicative, or obscured

im a ges. The ‘ 1 0 3 P a t e nt claim 1 likewise represents an advance over what

SAIC alleges was previously possible when connecting two f ields of v ision in

one display

. The sy stem recited in ‘103 Patent claim 1 couples orientation

sensors with a HUD, a v i d e o f e e d, and a c om

puter adapted to r eceive the
orientation data f

rom both sources and then translate the relative orientations into one display

with im a ges within proper boundaries.

The com m on specif

ication of the ‘01 2 P a t e n t and the ‘103 P atent

e xplains that the prior art also placed one i m age on top of another, using a beam com

b iner, but it could not dy

nam ically com

pare, adjust, or reposition an im a ge using orientation data such that t he narrower f ield of vis i on was display ed accurately in the transparent display

. The pri o r t echnique

s u perim posed by s im

p ly placing the narrower f

ield o f vision within the broader

f ield of vision. Although a user could view both f ields, t he user ran the risk of

m i s ma t c h ed boundaries, repetitive or o bscure im ages, and the inability to
recalculate with m ovem ent. Plaintif f ’ s patent claim s purp o r t to s o lve these problem s in the process o f register i n g t wo independently m oveable f ields of
vision.

The second p a tent f am ily claim s also of

f er an advance over t h e prior

art. Not unlike the ‘012 and ‘103 Patents, the ‘230 a n d ‘752 Patents are

c o n c e rned with the problem of identif y ing m atching regions in two f ields of
vision and accurately registering or replacing a p ortion of w hat can be v iewed through t he t ransparent display with the m atching im age f rom the video f

eed.

9The indepe n d e n t m ethod claim 1 5 in the ‘ 230 Patent recites receiving video

im a ges and m o t i on data f rom t wo video sources and then using the relative

m otion data captured by sensors to identif y a nd evaluate m atching portions
bef ore display ing. The com m on specif ication explains that the identif i cation
and com parison sy s t em dy

nam ically places im age s w i thin the transparent
dis p l a y s u c h that m atching im ages appear despite m ovem e n t of either the display or the second video source and without obscuring r elevant portions of
the scene with m ism atched im ages. The ‘230 and ‘752 Patents a lso purport to
of f er an advance over the requirem ent f or m a nual recalibration f

ound in prior approaches. T he patent claim s m inim ize the m anual recalibration by using the

l o c a t i o n com

parison data to adjust how “subsequent s ensor-based location s a r e determ ined.” ‘752 Patent col. 2, ll. 28-29. P laintif f ’s claim s thus build on the previous techniques fo r s u p e r i m p o s i t i o n b y i n c r e a s i n g a c curacy and d ecreasing
the need f o r m anual adjustm ents.

Plaintif f ’s patent c l a i m s each of f er advancem ent over the prior approach, b ut def

e ndant argues that regardless o f any a dvance the SAIC c l a im s

are directed t o an abstract i d e a , because its inventions are tied only to using
conventional senso r s and patent-ineligible calculations. Yet the character of
these patent claim s is not unlike others that have survived section 101 scrutiny

. T h e m ost sim ilar patent claim s are f ound i n T hales Visionix

, 850 F.3d 1343

, 1344. T he court he l d t h at the claim s at i ssue in Thales Visionix were not
directed to a n a b s t r a c t idea. First, the Thales Visionix claim s of f ered an im p rovem ent t o accuracy w hen “m easuring relative positi o n and orientation
of a m o ving objcet on a m oving ref erence f r am e.” I d

. a t 1 3 4 8. Although the
claim s involved a p a tent-ineligible equation, the patents coupled that equation

w i t h an arrangem ent of sensors and an unconventional ref erence p oint. The
claim s c onstituted an im

provem ent over prior approaches and w ere lim ited to patenting a particular way to m easure r elative position and orientation, rather
than claim ing laws of

nature governing m o tion. Id. at 1346.

Moreove r , t h e Federal Circuit in T hales V isionix ref

lected on the Suprem e Court’s decision in Diamond v. Diehr

, 450 U.S. 175, 177 (1981), in
which t he Court held p atent c l a im s eligible despite their inclusion of a

m athem atical f

orm u la and a generic com

p uter com ponent i n a claim ed m ethod

f or m olding raw, uncured r ubber into cured rubber products. The invention in
Diamond used a well-known equation and elem ents of the prior art, im p roving

upon what was present i n t h e industry by m easuring t em perature constantly

f rom inside the m old such that t he o pening of t he pre s s c o u l d be accurately
tim ed. Id. T he invention produced “a r esult heretof o re unknown in the art.” Id.

10at 1 9 3 n

. 1 5

. The Suprem e Court reasoned that, when a patentee devises a

process in w hich it incorporates an equation to r each a m ore ef f iceint solution,
“that process i s at the very least not barred a t the t hreshold by § 101,” even if
it m ay later be i nvalidated f or lack of novelty o r obviousness. Id. at 188. W hen plaintif f ’s patent c laim s are com

p ared to those in Thales Visionix

, and in light
of t h e s e principles, plaintif f ’s patent claim s provide the sam e ty pe of

lim itations f

ound i n t he Thales Visionix c laim language a s well as an unconventional solution to problem s present in the prior art.

The T hales Visionix m ethod claim com prised “dete r m i n i ng an orientation of

an object relative to a m o ving ref erence based on signals f

rom

two inertial sensors m ounted respectively on the o bj e c t and on t he m oving
ref erence f ram e.” Thales Visionix

, 850 F

. 3 d a t 1345. The ‘012 P atent independent m ethod claim likewise com prises determ ining source orientation
of a video source and the source orientation of a transp a r e n t display

, when
both are “independently m ovable about m ultiple axes,” a nd then d isplay ing the

im a ges such that the b oundaries of t h e display ed im ages register with the
boundaries of the visual f ield that m atch those im ages. ‘012 Patent col. 9-10.
The ‘012 Patent does not state that sensors will be the tool to accom p lish the orientation detection, but the s pecif ication sheds light on the character of the
patent by explaining that sensors are used t o allow an adapted c o n t r ol

com puter t o “dy

nam ically p osition[ ] within the v isual f ield.” ‘012 Patent col. 3-4, ll. 67-2.

The ‘ 230 a nd ‘752 m ethod claim s do n o t r e c i t e steps in term s of
determ ining relative o rientation, but they provide a com parable level of detail

to the T hales Visionix m ethod claim

. The s econd patent f am ily m ethod claim s

com bine a f irst v ideo source and a s econd video so u rce t o create im age registration by “receiving m otion data,” “identif y ing, b a s e d o n the received

m otion data ” the part of t he vi d e o s o u r c e s that are identical, perf orm i ng a “com parison of data f

rom f irst and second video source i m ages,” bef o re f inally display ing som e portion of the f irst video source in the second video source.
The ‘230 and ‘752 independent m ethod claim s 7 and 15 track the relationship
between t wo v i d e o s ources and accom pany i ng m otion d ata rather than tracking
the r elationship between a n object and a m oving ref erence f ram e, but both
inventions use sensors to p erf orm a calculation and provid e m o r e accurate
data.

The sy stem claim language in plaintif f ’s ‘103 Patent is a lso analogous

to the sy stem claim in T h a l e s V i sionix. The independent sy s t em claim in

11Thales Visionix claim ed a sy ste m c o mp r i s i ng: “(1) a f irst inertial sensor

m ounted on a tracked object; (2) a s e c ond inertial sensor m ounted on the

mo v i n g p latf

orm ; and ( 3) an elem ent that uses the data f rom t he two iner t i a l

sensors to calculate the orientation of the tracked object relative to the m oving platf orm , as disclosed in the specif i cation.” 85 0 F

. 3 d a t 1345-46. P laintif f ’s

‘103 independent sy stem claim likewise com prises “a f

irst orientation sensor adapted to detect an orientation of the video cam e ra ; ” “ a second orientation

sensor adapted t o detect a n orientation of the HUD;” a nd “a com puter a dapted

to receive sensor data f

rom the f irst and s econ d orientation sensors

. . . ,” coupled with the video cam era adapted to provide a f eed representing portions
of the v isual f

ield and the H UD adopted to view the visual f ield, b oth m ovable
about in d e p endent axes. ‘103 Patent col. 10. The specif i cation is usef

ul f or explaining that the calculations that are involved use the s e n s o r s a n d video

f eeds to m ap the c alculations to pix e l s , c r opping, discarding, and e nhancing
the overlay as necessary

. ‘103 Patent c ol. 6-7. The d if f erence between the t wo inventions is that t h e T

h a l e s Visionix claim s changed the ref e rence point f

or tracking relative orientation to an unconventional m oving pl a t f o r m whereas

SAIC purports t o introduce a n e w m e t h o d a nd sy stem that was never used
bef ore by em

ploy ing orientation sensors to r e l a t e and overlay location data
between t wo f

ields of vision, in addition to solution by “repeat[ ing] the process f or each new f

ram e ,” ‘103 col. 7, ll. 35-40.

The governm ent a rgues that S A I C r e a c h i n g a m o r e a c c urate, continuous
result b y c om

bining previously known com ponents a nd a com

puter adapted to

p erf orm particular calculations is not s u f f icient t o bring the claim s within
section 101 eligible subject m atter. But the Federal Circuit has a lso highlighted
the dif f e r e n c e b etween a patent-eligible c laim introducing a signif icantly

im p roved process that incorporates k nown c om

ponents a n d a patent-ineligible

c l a i m t h a t “recites only ‘ well-understood, ro u t i n e , c o n v e n t i o n a l a c t i v i t y a l r e a d y engaged in by the scientif i c com m unity .’” Rapid Litig. Manag. Ltd.

, 827 F .3d

at 1050-51 ( quoting Mayo

, 566 U.S. at 73). The Federal C ircuit in Thales

Visionix r elied on the principle that k nown techniques or com

ponents m ay be
included in a claim w hen used in an u nconventional way to acquire a new and
usef ul result.850 F.3d at 1349 (citing Enfish , 822 F.3d at 1337–38).

The ‘012 m ethod c laim and t he ‘103 sy stem claim are directe d t o im p roving the prior process by using known com ponents in a n unconventional

way to register im a ges within accurate boundaries. M o r eover, t he claim s anticipate t he use of independently m o v a b l e i m age sources such that the
orientation sensing a nd boundary recognition process m ust be continuous. The

12‘752 a n d ‘230 m ethod claim s f urther describe how to c om bine k nown

com ponents, including inertial sensors, to com m unicate m otion data such t hat
the im ages can be accurately aligned and the calibration process can be tied to

t h e c ollected location d ata. SAIC i s not required to tie the claim language t o

a particular m achine or a pparatu s , B i l

s k i v. Kappos

, 561 U.S. 593, 603-04 (2010), nor is SAIC required t o dem onstrate a change in the c o m puter technology itself

, f or that is only on e e x a mp l e of a patentable technology invention, s e e Alice

, 134 S. Ct. at 2351, 2359 (discussing e x a mp l e s o f what
constitutes “enough” to transf orm an abstract i dea into an inventive concept).

Plaintif f ’s patents’ claim language does not suf f er f rom t he lack of

structure the Federal Circuit identif ied in A ffinity, 838 F.3d at 1259-60. There,
the court concluded that a patent claim ing to “dissem inate regionally broadcast

content to users outside the region” was directed to an abstract idea because
the cl a i ms d i d not of

f er any thing m ore concrete than a downloadable application to accom

plish a longstanding business p ractice. Id. at 1257. H ere, SAIC’s claim s disclosing how t o accurately identif y and place i ma g e s b y specif i cally usi n g o r ientation sensors or m otion d ata t o allow a com puter to
identif y , com pare, and a djust im ag e s a r e m ore concrete than t he general
dissem ination of

content through a downloadable application.

More o v e r , we are not persuaded by def endant’s argum ent t hat plaintif f ’s cl a i me d m ethods can be p erf orm ed with j ust the hum a n e y e and a

weapon scope. The f

irst patent f

am ily claim s p r e s e n t a solution to hum an lim itations and to t he problem in the prior art of boundary r egistration working

in t a ndem with independently m ovable a xes. Although t he hum a n b rain is

c apable of m atching im ages and evaluating d if f erences, the ‘752 and ‘ 2 3 0

m ethod c laim s recite a m eans of autom atically and continuously p erf orm ing
the evaluation without t he user needing to adjust t he f i eld of v ision d irectly in

f ront of her. See SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int ’ l Trade Comm ’ n , 601 F.3d 1319, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“There is no evidence h ere t hat the calculations here can be perf orm ed entirely i n the hum an m ind.”). The character of the claim language

f or each patent is to com

bine two f ields of vision into one, creating an accurate
f eed of im ages, without the need f or t he user t o f

ocus on t he vision through the weapon sight (or other com ponent) at all.

W e do, however, share def endant’s c oncern regarding the degree o f
detail SAIC of

f ers in its claim language to explain h o w t h e r e c iept and
identif ication of im ages and sensor data t ranslates into a c c u r ate superim position. The least detailed of t he f our, the ‘012 Patent claim 1, adds

13bo u ndary registration to determ ining a source orientation and a display

orientation, but does n ot of f er com paratively detailed s teps to the other m ethod
claim s. Each of the patent specif ications also illustrate that any video source, transparent display source, corded or wireless connection, or brand of sensor

m a y b e em ploy ed to com

p lete any of the patented processes. The specif icati o n s unif orm ly s tate that t h e s teps prescribed by the claim s a r e not required to be perf orm ed in a particular order.

The Alice/Mayo test f

or section 101 analy sis, however, is n ot c oncerned
with whether

an artisan skilled in the art can perf orm the m ethod claim ed by

t h e p a tent nor whether the claim language is suf f iciently def

i nite, nove l

, o r non-obvious, but r ather whether the character of a c laim as a whole is directed

to a patent-ineligible subject m atter. Taken on the f ace o f t h e claim s and the specif i cation, p laintif

f ’ s p atents com

b ine existing c om

puter t echnology

, sensors, a nd calculations in an unconventional way in order to reach a solution

to t he problem of alignm ent and c onsistently accurate display

. Because SAIC
did not stop a t the concept of superim position b ut instead provided a solution

f or achieving accuracy a nd consistency in im age registration

, p l a intif f ’s claim s are not directed to an abstract idea.

Given that the patent claim s at issue, when considered a s a whole and

in light of their s p e c i f

ications, are directed to a particular solution to an industry p roblem a nd deploy an unconventional technique, it is unnecessary to

progress to Alice/Mayo step two to determ ine whether the patents tra n s f o r m

an abstract idea with an inventive co n c e pt. W e theref ore deny def

endant’s

m otion to dism i ss f

or f ailure to state a claim

pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(6).

s/Eric G. Bruggink Eric G. Bruggink Senior Judge

14