Patents; motion to dismiss for

patent-ineligible subject matter; 35

U.S.C. § 101 (2012); whether

plaintiff’s claims are directed to an

abstract idea

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

No. 17-825

(Filed: January 19, 2018)

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

SCIENCE APPLICATIONS 

INTERNATIONAL CORP.,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE UNITED STATES,

Defendant.

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

Christopher C. Campbell, Washington, DC, with whom was DeAnna

D. Allen, for plaintiff.

Alex Hanna, United States Department of Justice, Civil Division,

Commercial Litigation Branch, Washington, DC, for defendant.

ORDER

This is a claim for patent infringement. Plaintiff, Science Applications

International Corp. (“SAIC”), claims that the government has infringed four

patents by entering into contracts with plaintiff’s competitors for the

procurement of specialized heads up displays (“HUD”) and night vision

goggles that allegedly use SAIC’s patented technology. Defendant moves to

dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Rules of the

United States Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”), contending that plaintiff’s

patents claim ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (2012).

At the motion to dismiss stage, we assume that the facts as stated in the
complaint are true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Defendant’s motion raises a question of law: whether plaintiff's

patent claims recite patent-eligible subject matter. Accenture Global Servs.,

GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1340–41 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

Section 101 sets out the list of patentable subject matter: “any new and useful

process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and

useful improvement thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. Although this statutory grant

is expansive, the Supreme Court has held that section 101 is subject to implicit

exceptions for “laws of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract ideas,”

which are not patentable. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct.

2347, 2354 (2014). These three concepts are ineligible for patenting because

they form the “basic building blocks of human ingenuity.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at

2354. Claiming a law of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract idea would

preempt its use in future inventions, abusing the purpose of patent law and

hampering the process of human innovation. Id. (citing Mayo Collaborative

Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71 (2012)).

The Supreme Court has set out the two-part Alice/Mayo test for

determining whether a patent claims ineligible subject matter. First, this court

must determine whether the patent is directed to a patent-ineligible concept,

such as an abstract idea. Id. at 2355 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73). If the

patent is directed to a patent-ineligible concept, the second step is to

determine, considering the claims “both individually, and ‘as an ordered

combination,’” whether the patent claimssufficiently transform the ineligible

subject matter 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, but has emphasized, “[T]he first-stage filter is a meaningful

one, sometimes ending the inquiry.” Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.,

830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The “directed to” inquiry is not simply

asking whether an ineligible concept is involved in the patent claims, because

all inventions “embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply” ineligible concepts

to some extent, but rather if the patent is claiming the abstract idea itself.

Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73; see also Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d

1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The first step “calls upon us to look at the ‘focus

of the claimed advance over the prior art’ to determine if the claim’s ‘character

as a whole’ is directed to excluded subject matter.” Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC

v. DIRECTV Dig. LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed.Cir. 2016) (quoting Genetic

Techs. Ltd. v. Merial L.L.C., 818 F.3d 1369, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet

2
Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).

Under Alice/Mayo step one, when determining if the claim’s character is to

preempt the ineligible concept or if the claim is sufficiently limited, the

Federal Circuit considers the advance or advantages that the claim presents

when compared to prior art and reads the claim language in light of the

specification. Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir.

2017); Enfish, 822 F.2d at 1335, 1337; Genetic Techs. Ltd., 818 F.3d at 1375-

76. In addition to the claim’s language and the specification, the first step calls

for comparing the claims at issue to claims that have been found eligible or

ineligible in prior cases. Enfish, 822 F.2d at 1334.

With thatframework, we turn to the parties’ arguments regarding patent

eligibility for each of the four patents at issue and apply the Alice/Mayo firststage filter to the patent claims. Both defendant in its motion to dismiss and

plaintiff in itsresponse put forth arguments that apply to all four patent claims.

We therefore will set out the claim language from each patent claim analyzed

in the briefing before considering the parties’ arguments and comparing each

patent’s claim language to claims formerly found eligible or ineligible by the

Federal Circuit. 

I. The SERVAL Patents

The patents at issue here are U.S. Patent No. 7,787,012 (“the ‘012

Patent”), U.S. Patent No. 8,817,103 (“the ‘103 Patent”), U.S. Patent No.

9,229,230 (“the ‘230 Patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 9,618,752 (“the ‘752

Patent”) (collectively, the “SERVAL patents”). The four patents form two

patent families due to the interrelatedness of the applications. The first patent

family is formed by the ‘012 Patent and the ‘103 Patent; the ‘103 Patent is a

division of the ‘012 Patent. The second patent family is formed by the ‘230

Patent and the ‘752 Patent; the ‘752 Patent is a continuation of the ‘230 Patent.

The four independent claims the parties analyzed in briefing are claim 1 of

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

7 of the ‘752 Patent.1

1 The parties also dispute which claims are representative. In its complaint,

SAIC argues that all four patents have been infringed, 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. Plaintiff discusses these four independent claims in its

complaint without discussing the other independent claims found in its patents.

3
A. Patent Family One

The first patent family consists of the ‘012 Patent and the ‘103 Patent.

The ‘012 Patent is entitled “System and Method for Video Image Registration

in a Heads Up Display.” Pl.’s Compl. Ex. A (‘012 Patent). It issued on August

31, 2010, with nineteen claims, all of which are method claims. The

independent claims are claim 1 and claim 17. Claim 1 of the ‘012 Patent

recites: 

1. A method of registering video images with an underlying

visual field comprising the steps of:

(1) determining a source orientation of a video source providing

a video feed containing data for a series of video images

representing portions of a visual field;

(2) determining a display orientation of a transparent display

overlaying the visual field, wherein the video source and the

transparent display are independently movable about multiple

axes; and

(3) displaying the video images in positions on the transparent

display that overlay portions of the visual field represented by

the displayed video images,

wherein boundaries of the displayed video images are in

Defendant designated the four independent claims referenced in the complaint

as representative. Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss 21 n.9, n.11. Plaintiff disputes this

designation and argues that all independent claims should be evaluated when

assessing whether the patents claim eligible subject matter. A representative

claim is one that is determinative of the issue before the court. In re Am. Acad.

Of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). We find it

unnecessary to designate the representative claims at this stage, because

evaluating the four independent claims discussed in the briefing is sufficient

to hold that plaintiff’s patents claim eligible subject matter. We encourage the

parties to stipulate to the representative claims.

4
registration with boundaries of portions of the visual field

represented by the displayed video images.

‘012 Patent col. 9-10.

The ‘103 Patent is likewise entitled “System and Method for Video

Image Registration in a Heads Up Display.” Pl.’s Compl. Ex. B (‘103 Patent).

The ‘103 Patent is a division of the ‘012 Patent and shares a common

specification with the ‘012 Patent. It issued on August 26, 2014, with twelve

claims. The only independent claim is system claim 1. Claim 1 of the ‘103

Patent recites:

1. A system comprising:

a video camera adapted to provide, in a video feed, data for a

series of video images representing portions of a visual field;

a first orientation sensor adapted to detect an orientation of the

video camera;

a heads up display (HUD) adapted for viewing of the visual field

by a user of the system wherein the HUD comprises a

transparent display, and wherein the HUD and the video camera

are independently movable about multiple axes;

a second orientation sensor adapted to detect an orientation of

the HUD; and

a computer adapted to receive sensor data from the first and

second orientation sensors, to receive the video feed from the

video camera, and to display the video images, on the

transparant [sic] display and based on the received sensor data,

in positions that overlay portions of the visual field represented

by the displayed video images wherein boundaries of the

displayed video images are in registration with boundaries of

portions of the visual field represented by the displayed video

images, and wherein the computer is adapted to determine a

source orientation of the video camera, and determine a display

orientation of the transparent display.

5
‘103 Patent col. 10. 

B. Patent Family Two

The second patent family consists of the ‘230 Patent and the ‘752

Patent. The ‘230 Patent is entitled “System and Method for Video Image

Registration and/or Providing Supplemental Data in a Heads Up Display.”

Pl.’s Compl. Ex. C (‘230 Patent). It issued on January 5, 2016, with forty-two

claims.Systemclaim1, method claim15, and non-transitorymachine-readable

medium 29 are independent claims. Claim 15 of the ‘230 Patent recites: 

15. A method, comprising:

(a) receiving video images from a first video source and from a

second video source representing portions of an external

environment;

(b) receiving motion data indicative of motion of the first and

second video sources;

(c) identifying, based on the received motion data, a part of a

first video source image that potentially represents a portion of

the external environment represented in a part of a second video

source image;

(d) evaluating, based on a comparison of data from the first and

second video source images, the identification performed in step

(c); and

(e) displaying at least a portion of the first video source image

and at least a portion of the second video source image such that

the second video source image portion overlays a corresponding

region of the first video source image portion, wherein the

corresponding region represents a portion of the external

environment represented in the second video source portion.

‘230 Patent col. 26.

The ‘752 Patent is also entitled “System and Method for Video Image

Registration and/or Providing Supplemental Data in a Heads Up Display.”

6
Pl.’s Compl. Ex. D (‘752 Patent). The ‘752 Patent is a continuation of the ‘230

Patent and shares a common specification with the ‘230 Patent. It issued on

April 11, 2017, with eighteen claims. It issued with three independent claims:

system claim 1, method claim7, and non-transitorymachine-readable medium

claim 13. Claim 7 of the ‘752 Patent recites: 

7. A method comprising:

receiving first video data of images representing portions of an

external environment within a field of view of a first video

source; 

receiving second video data of images representing portions of

the external environment within a field of view of a second

video source;

receiving first motion data corresponding to the first video

source and second motion data corresponding to the second

video source;

identifying, based on the received first motion data and the

received second motion data, a region of a first image generable

from the first video data for comparison with a region of a

second image generable from the second video data;

comparing data corresponding to the identified region of the

first image and data corresponding to the region of the second

image; selecting, based on the comparing, a part of the first

image and a part of the second image that represent a same

portion of the external environment; and

displaying at least a portion of the first image and the selected

part of the second image such that the selected part of the

second image replaces the selected part of the first image and is

in registration with regions of the first image surrounding the

selected part of the first image.

‘752 Patent col. 26.

II. Section 101 Patent Claim Analysis

7
Defendant contends that SAIC’s patents claim the abstract idea of

superimposing a video image in a location on a display, thereby preempting

future innovation in how images can be manipulated to appear in the same

field of vision. Plaintiff responds that its patents claim methods and systems

of accurately positioning images from two independently movable sources by

using orientation and motion sensors and data in an unconventional way. After

considering the character of each claim in light of its specification, we find

that plaintiff’s patent claims are not directed to an abstract idea.

The government’s arguments regarding the first and second patent

family can be set out together. Defendant argues that the first patent family

claims are directed to the abstract idea of superimposing video images based

on relative orientation. Defendant contends that the ‘012 and the ‘103 Patents

claim language lacks a concrete structural element, a tie to a particular

machine or transformative process, or an improvement in the computer

technology. Instead, the government argues, the first patent family claims

recite generic computer components and calculations without a required

combination for implementation or some other unique element. The ‘012

Patent claim 1, the government argues, amounts to a monopoly on a process

that can be performed by the human mind, namely “the age-old practice of

looking at a target, through a weapon sight or telescope . . . while looking with

the other eye simultaneously outside of the weapon sight or telescope . . . .”

Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss 23.

The government argues that the second patent family claims are

directed to the abstract idea of superimposing video images based on relative

motion data. The government contends that the additional feature of

minimizing the need for manual sensor recalibration does not alter the

character of the claims from superimposition of images. It argues that

plaintiff’s claims offer only well-known, patent-ineligible calculations to

accomplish the result of the claims, without providing any patentable structure

or algorithm.

SAIC responds that none of the claims are directed to the underlying

idea of superimposing images. It contends that claiming the method and

system of registering images based on the use of orientation and motion

sensors does not constitute an abstract idea, avoiding preemption of other

methods of registering images. Plaintiff alleges that its patents focus on

solving a problem in the technology available for registering images by

combining orientation sensors and data, inertial sensors and motion data,

8
boundary registration, and independently movable components. SAIC argues

that patent law does not require an improvement in the computer or a tie to a

specific machine or apparatus, but that a patentee may instead patent an

unconventional solution to a problem in a method previously employed in the

industry.

At a high level, all four claims undoubtedly involve the idea of

superimposition of images. But the Federal Circuit has admonished that just

because the claims involve an abstract idea does not mean 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 whether the claims are

directed to the idea of superimposing one image on another or whether the

claims “recite more than a mere result.” Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc.,

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

First, before comparing plaintiff’s claim language to other eligible

subject matter, the claims offer an advance beyond the prior art. The ‘012

Patent claim 1 represents an advance over the prior art by detecting orientation

of a video and display, independently moveable about multiple axes, in order

to register images within accurate boundaries. The third step of the ‘012

method claim ties together orientation detection with the increased accuracy

of how images are displayed, avoiding blurred, duplicative, or obscured

images. The ‘103 Patent claim 1 likewise represents an advance over what

SAIC alleges was previously possible when connecting two fields of vision in

one display. The system recited in ‘103 Patent claim 1 couples orientation

sensors with a HUD, a video feed, and a computer adapted to receive the

orientation data from both sources and then translate the relative orientations

into one display with images within proper boundaries. 

The common specification of the ‘012 Patent and the ‘103 Patent

explains that the prior art also placed one image on top of another, using a

beam combiner, but it could not dynamically compare, adjust, or reposition an

image using orientation data such that the narrower field of vision was

displayed accurately in the transparent display. The prior technique

superimposed bysimplyplacing the narrower field of vision within the broader

field of vision. Although a user could view both fields, the user ran the risk of

mismatched boundaries, repetitive or obscure images, and the inability to

recalculate with movement. Plaintiff’s patent claims purport to solve these

problems in the process of registering two independently moveable fields of

vision.

9
The second patent family claims also offer an advance over the prior

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

concerned with the problem of identifying matching regions in two fields of

vision and accurately registering or replacing a portion of what can be viewed

through the transparent display with the matching image from the video feed.

The independent method claim 15 in the ‘230 Patent recites receiving video

images and motion data from two video sources and then using the relative

motion data captured by sensors to identify and evaluate matching portions

before displaying. The common specification explains that the identification

and comparison system dynamically places images within the transparent

display such that matching images appear despite movement of either the

display or the second video source and without obscuring relevant portions of

the scene with mismatched images. The ‘230 and ‘752 Patents also purport to

offer an advance over the requirement for manual recalibration found in prior

approaches. The patent claims minimize the manual recalibration by using the

location comparison data to adjust how “subsequent sensor-based locations are

determined.” ‘752 Patent col. 2, ll. 28-29. Plaintiff’s claims thus build on the

previoustechniques for superimposition byincreasing accuracyand decreasing

the need for manual adjustments. 

Plaintiff’s patent claims each offer advancement over the prior

approach, but defendant argues that regardless of anyadvance the SAIC claims

are directed to an abstract idea, because its inventions are tied only to using

conventional sensors and patent-ineligible calculations. Yet the character of

these patent claims is not unlike others that have survived section 101 scrutiny.

The most similar patent claims are found in Thales Visionix, 850 F.3d 1343,

1344. The court held that the claims at issue in Thales Visionix were not

directed to an abstract idea. First, the Thales Visionix claims offered an

improvement to accuracy when “measuring relative position and orientation

of a moving objcet on a moving reference frame.” Id. at 1348. Although the

claimsinvolved a patent-ineligible equation, the patents coupled that equation

with an arrangement of sensors and an unconventional reference point. The

claims constituted an improvement over prior approaches and were limited to

patenting a particular way to measure relative position and orientation, rather

than claiming laws of nature governing motion. Id. at 1346. 

Moreover, the Federal Circuit in Thales Visionix reflected on the

Supreme Court’s decision in Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 177 (1981), in

which the Court held patent claims eligible despite their inclusion of a

mathematicalformula and a generic computer component in a claimed method

10
for molding raw, uncured rubber into cured rubber products. The invention in

Diamond used a well-known equation and elements of the prior art, improving

upon what was present in the industry by measuring temperature constantly

from inside the mold such that the opening of the press could be accurately

timed. Id. The invention produced “a result heretofore unknown in the art.” Id.

at 193 n.15. The Supreme Court reasoned that, when a patentee devises a

processin which it incorporates an equation to reach a more efficeint solution,

“that process is at the very least not barred at the threshold by § 101,” even if

it may later be invalidated for lack of novelty or obviousness. Id. at 188. When

plaintiff ’s patent claims are compared to those in Thales Visionix, and in light

of these principles, plaintiff’s patent claims provide the same type of

limitations found in the Thales Visionix claim language as well as an

unconventional solution to problems present in the prior art. 

The Thales Visionix method claim comprised “determining an

orientation of an object relative to a moving reference based on signals from

two inertial sensors mounted respectively on the object and on the moving

reference frame.” Thales Visionix, 850 F.3d at 1345. The ‘012 Patent

independent method claim likewise comprises determining source orientation

of a video source and the source orientation of a transparent display, when

both are “independentlymovable aboutmultiple axes,” and then displaying the

images such that the boundaries of the displayed images register with the

boundaries of the visual field that match those images. ‘012 Patent col. 9-10.

The ‘012 Patent does not state that sensors will be the tool to accomplish the

orientation detection, but the specification sheds light on the character of the

patent by explaining that sensors are used to allow an adapted control

computer to “dynamically position[] within the visual field.” ‘012 Patent col.

3-4, ll. 67-2. 

The ‘230 and ‘752 method claims do not recite steps in terms of

determining relative orientation, but they provide a comparable level of detail

to the Thales Visionix method claim. The second patent family method claims

combine a first video source and a second video source to create image

registration by “receiving motion data,” “identifying, based on the received

motion data ” the part of the video sources that are identical, performing a

“comparison of data fromfirst and second video source images,” before finally

displaying some portion of the first video source in the second video source.

The ‘230 and ‘752 independent method claims 7 and 15 track the relationship

between two video sources and accompanying motion data rather than tracking

the relationship between an object and a moving reference frame, but both

11
inventions use sensors to perform a calculation and provide more accurate

data. 

The system claim language in plaintiff’s ‘103 Patent is also analogous

to the system claim in Thales Visionix. The independent system claim in

Thales Visionix claimed a system comprising: “(1) a first inertial sensor

mounted on a tracked object; (2) a second inertial sensor mounted on the

moving platform; and (3) an element that uses the data from the two inertial

sensorsto calculate the orientation of the tracked object relative to the moving

platform, as disclosed in the specification.” 850 F.3d at 1345-46. Plaintiff’s

‘103 independent system claim likewise comprises “a first orientation sensor

adapted to detect an orientation of the video camera;” “a second orientation

sensor adapted to detect an orientation of the HUD;” and “a computer adapted

to receive sensor data from the first and second orientation sensors . . . ,”

coupled with the video camera adapted to provide a feed representing portions

of the visual field and the HUD adopted to view the visual field, both movable

about independent axes. ‘103 Patent col. 10. The specification is useful for

explaining that the calculations that are involved use the sensors and video

feeds to map the calculations to pixels, cropping, discarding, and enhancing

the overlay as necessary. ‘103 Patent col. 6-7. The difference between the two

inventions is that the Thales Visionix claims changed the reference point for

tracking relative orientation to an unconventional moving platform whereas

SAIC purports to introduce a new method and system that was never used

before by employing orientation sensors to relate and overlay location data

between two fields of vision, in addition to solution by “repeat[ing] the process

for each new frame,” ‘103 col. 7, ll. 35-40.

The government argues that SAIC reaching a more accurate, continuous

result by combining previously known components and a computer adapted to

perform particular calculations is not sufficient to bring the claims within

section 101 eligible subjectmatter. But the Federal Circuit has also highlighted

the difference between a patent-eligible claim introducing a significantly

improved process that incorporates known components and a patent-ineligible

claimthat “recites only‘well-understood,routine, conventional activityalready

engaged in by the scientific community.’” Rapid Litig. Manag. Ltd., 827 F.3d

at 1050-51 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 73). The Federal Circuit in Thales

Visionix relied on the principle that known techniques or components may be

included in a claim when used in an unconventional way to acquire a new and

useful result.850 F.3d at 1349 (citing Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1337–38). 

12
The ‘012 method claim and the ‘103 system claim are directed to

improving the prior process by using known components in an unconventional

way to register images within accurate boundaries. Moreover, the claims

anticipate the use of independently movable image sources such that the

orientation sensing and boundary recognition process must be continuous. The

‘752 and ‘230 method claims further describe how to combine known

components, including inertial sensors, to communicate motion data such that

the images can be accurately aligned and the calibration process can be tied to

the collected location data. SAIC is not required to tie the claim language to

a particular machine or apparatus, Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 603-04

(2010), nor is SAIC required to demonstrate a change in the computer

technology itself, for that is only one example of a patentable technology

invention, see Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2351, 2359 (discussing examples of what

constitutes “enough” to transform an abstract idea into an inventive concept).

Plaintiff’s patents’ claim language does not suffer from the lack of

structure the Federal Circuit identified in Affinity, 838 F.3d at 1259-60. There,

the court concluded that a patent claiming to “disseminate regionally broadcast

content to users outside the region” was directed to an abstract idea because

the claims did not offer anything more concrete than a downloadable

application to accomplish a longstanding business practice. Id. at 1257. Here,

SAIC’s claims disclosing how to accurately identify and place images by

specifically using orientation sensors or motion data to allow a computer to

identify, compare, and adjust images are more concrete than the general

dissemination of content through a downloadable application.

Moreover, we are not persuaded by defendant’s argument that

plaintiff’s claimed methods can be performed with just the human eye and a

weapon scope. The first patent family claims present a solution to human

limitations and to the problem in the prior art of boundary registration working

in tandem with independently movable axes. Although the human brain is

capable of matching images and evaluating differences, the ‘752 and ‘230

method claims recite a means of automatically and continuously performing

the evaluation without the user needing to adjust the field of vision directly in

front of her. See SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 601 F.3d 1319, 1333

(Fed. Cir. 2010) (“There is no evidence here that the calculations here can be

performed entirely in the human mind.”). The character of the claim language

for each patent is to combine two fields of vision into one, creating an accurate

feed of images, without the need for the user to focus on the vision through the

weapon sight (or other component) at all.

13
We do, however, share defendant’s concern regarding the degree of

detail SAIC offers in its claim language to explain how the reciept and

identification of images and sensor data translates into accurate

superimposition. The least detailed of the four, the ‘012 Patent claim 1, adds

boundary registration to determining a source orientation and a display

orientation, but does not offer comparatively detailed steps to the other method

claims. Each of the patent specifications also illustrate that any video source,

transparent display source, corded or wireless connection, or brand of sensor

maybe employed to complete anyofthe patented processes. The specifications

uniformly state that the steps prescribed by the claims are not required to be

performed in a particular order. 

TheAlice/Mayo test for section 101 analysis, however, is not concerned

with whether an artisan skilled in the art can perform the method claimed by

the patent nor whether the claim language is sufficiently definite, novel, or

non-obvious, but rather whether the character of a claim as a whole is directed

to a patent-ineligible subject matter. Taken on the face of the claims and the

specification, plaintiff’s patents combine existing computer technology,

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

to the problem of alignment and consistently accurate display. Because SAIC

did not stop at the concept of superimposition but instead provided a solution

for achieving accuracyand consistencyin image registration, plaintiff’s claims

are not directed to an abstract idea. 

Given that the patent claims at issue, when considered as a whole and

in light of their specifications, are directed to a particular solution to an

industry problem and deploy an unconventional technique, it is unnecessary to

progress to Alice/Mayo step two to determine whether the patents transform

an abstract idea with an inventive concept. We therefore deny defendant’s

motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(6).

s/Eric G. Bruggink

Eric G. Bruggink

Senior Judge

14