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.

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

Christopher C. Campbell, W a shington, DC, with w hom was DeAnna
D. Allen

, f

o r plaintif f

.

Alex Hanna

, United Sta t e s D e p artm ent of J ustice, Civil Division,

Com m ercial Litigation Branch, W ashington, DC, f or def endant.

ORDER

This is a claim f

o r p atent 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 enteri n g i nto contracts w i th plaintif f ’s c om petitors f or the

procurem ent of s pecialized heads up d i splay s (“HUD”) and night vision goggles t hat allegedly use SAIC’s p a t ented technology

. Def endant m oves to
dism i ss f or f ailure to s tate a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of th e R u l e s 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, we a ssum e that the f acts as stated i n thecom plaint a r e true and d

raw a ll reasonable inf

erences in f

avor o f the nonm oving party

. D ef

endant’s m otion raises a question o f 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

pro c e s s , m achine, m anuf a cture, or com

position of m atter, or any new and
usef ul im provem e nt thereof

.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. Although this statutory grant
is expansive, the Suprem e Court has h eld that section 101 is subject to im plicit

e x c e p tions f

or “laws of n ature, natural p henom e non, and abstract ide a s , ”
which are not patenta b l e. Alice Corp. P ty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l

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

, 134 S. Ct. at
2354. Claim ing a law of nature, na t u ral p henom ena, or abstract idea w ould

pre e mp t i t s use in f

uture inventions, abusing the purpose of patent l aw and

h a m pering the process of hum a n innovation. Id. (citing Mayo Collaborati v e Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc. , 566 U.S. 66, 71 (2012)).

The Suprem e Court ha s s e t o u t the t wo-part Alice/Mayo test f or determ ining whether a p atent claim s ineligible subject m atter. F irst, this court

m ust determ ine whether the patent i s directed to a patent-ineligible c o n cept,

s u c h as an abstract idea. Id. at 2355 ( citing Mayo

, 566 U.S. at 72-7 3 )

. I f t h e pate n t is directed to a patent-ineligible c o ncept, the second s tep is to
determ ine, considering the claim s “ both individually

, a n d ‘a s 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 endin g t h e i n q uiry .” Elec. P ower G rp., L LC v. Alstom S.A.

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

body

, use, ref

l ect, rest u

p o n , o r apply ” ineligible concepts

to som e extent, b u t r a t h e r if the patent is claim ing the abstract i dea itself

. M a y o , 566 U.S. at 72-73; see also E nfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.

, 822 F

. 3 d 1327, 1 335 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The f irst s tep “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. Meria l L .L.C.

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

2Patents 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 neligib l e c o n c e p t or if the claim is suf f iciently lim ited, the

F e d e ral Circuit considers the advance or advantages that the claim presen t s when c om

pared to p r i o r a r t a nd reads the claim language in l ight of the specif i cation. Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States , 850 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Enfish

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

, 818 F.3d at 1375-

76. In a ddition to the claim ’s language a nd 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 t h a t fr am e work, we turn t o the parties’ argum e nts regarding patent eligibility f

or e ach of the f

our patents at issue and apply the A lice/Mayo firststage f ilter to the p a tent c la i ms

. B o t h d ef endant in 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 t o claim s f orm erly f ound e ligible or i neligible by the
Federal Circuit.

I. The SERVAL Patents

The patents at issue he r e a r e U.S. Patent No. 7,787,012 (“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 atent”) and U.S. Patent No. 9,618,752 (“the ‘752 Patent”) (c o l l e c t ively

, the “SERVAL patents”). The f our patents f

orm t wo patent f am ilies d ue to the interrelatedness o f the applications. The f irst patent
f am ily is f o rm e d b y the ‘ 012 Patent and t he ‘ 103 Patent; the ‘103 Patent i s a division of the ‘ 012 Patent. The 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 independent c laim s t he parties a naly zed in brief

i ng 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 T he parties also di s p ute which claim s are r epresentative. In its c om plaint,

SAIC argues that all f

our patents have been inf

r inged, b ut “at least” claim 1 of

‘012 Patent, c laim 1 of the ‘103 P atent, 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 di s c u s s i ng the other independent claim s f ound in its patents.

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

Def endant designated the f

our independent claim s r ef erenced in the com

plaint as representative. Def

. ’s Mot. to Dism iss 2 1 n.9, n.11. Plaintif f disputes this designation and argues that all independent claim s should be e valuated when assessing wh e t h e r the p atents claim eligible subject m a tter. A representative

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

ech C t r. , 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2 004). W e f ind it

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.

4regi s tration with boundaries of portions of the v isual f i eld represented by

the display ed video im ages.

‘012 Patent col. 9-10.

The ‘103 Patent i s likewise entitled “Sy stem and Method f or V i deo

Im age Registration in a Heads Up Display .” Pl.’s C om pl. Ex. B (‘103 Patent).
The ‘103 Pat e n t i s 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 2 6, 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 v i d e o c a m era adapted to provide, in a video 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 d etect an o rientation of the
video cam e ra;

a heads up display (HUD) adapted f or viewing o f the visual f

i eld by a user of t h e s y s t e m wherein the H UD com prises a transparent display

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

m ovable about m

u ltiple axes;

a second orientation sen s o r a d a p ted t o detect an orientation of the HUD; and

a com puter adapted to receive sensor data f rom t h e f i rst and
second orientation sensors, to receive the video f eed f rom t he
video cam era, and to display the v i d e o i m ages, on the
transparant [ sic] display and based on t he received s ensor data,

in positions that overlay portions of the visual f ield represented by the display ed v ideo im a g es w herein b o u n d a ries of the
d i splay ed video im ages are in registration with boundar i e s o f portions of t he visual f

ield represented by t he display e d video

im ages, a nd wherein the com puter i s a dapted to determ i ne a

source orientation of the video cam e r a, and determ ine a display
orientation of

the transparent display

.

5‘103 Patent col. 10.

B. Patent Fam ily Tw o

T h e s econd patent f

am ily consists o f the ‘230 Patent and the ‘ 7 5 2

Patent. The ‘230 Patent is entitl e d “ S y stem and M ethod f or Video Im age Registration and/or Providing Supplem ental Data in a Heads U p D i s p lay .”
Pl.’s Com p l. Ex. C (‘230 Patent). It i ssued on January 5, 2016, with f o rty -two
cla i m s

. S y s t e m c l a i m 1

, m ethod claim 15, 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 so u r ce representing portions o f an external
environm ent;

(b) rec e iving m otion data indicative of m otion of the f irst and second video sources;

(c) identif y i n g , b a s e d on the received m otion data, a part of a f irst video source im age that potentially represents a portion of
the e xternal e nvironm ent represented in a part of a second video
source im age;

(d) evaluating, based on a c om parison of data f

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

orm ed in step (c); and

(e) display ing at least a portion of the f irst v id e o s o u rce im age and at least a portion of the second video source im age such t hat
the second video source im age portion overlay s a corresponding

r e g i o n o f the f

irst video source im age portion, wherein the corresponding region r epresents a p ortion of t h e external
environm ent represented in the second video source portion.

‘230 Patent col. 26.

The ‘752 Patent is also entitled “Sy stem and Method f or Video Im age Registration and/or Pro v i d i n g Supplem ental Data i n a Heads Up Display .”

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

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

. It issued with three i ndependent claim s:

sy stem claim 1, m e thod 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:

receiving f

irst video data of im ages r epresenting p ortions of an external e nviron me n t w i t h in 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 eld of view o f a second video source;

receiving f

i r s t m otion data corresponding to the f irst video

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

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

f rom the f i rst vide o d a t a f

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

com paring data correspon d i n g t o t he identif i ed region o f the

f irst im age and data corresponding to the regi o n of the second

im age; select i n g , b a s ed on the com paring, a part of the f

irst

im age and a part of the second im age that r epresent a s am e portion of the external environm ent; and

display ing at least a portion of the f irst i m ag e and t he selected

p a r t o f t h e second im age s uch that the selected part of the
second im age r eplaces the selected part of the f irst im age and is

in registration with regions of t he 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

7Def e n d a n t c o ntends 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 h ow im ages c a n b e m anipulated t o appear in t he sam e f i eld of vision. Plaintif

f r esponds that its patents claim m e thods a nd sy ste m 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 considering 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

a m i ly
claim s are directed to the a bstract idea of superim

posing video im ages based

on relative orientation. Def endant contends that the ‘ 012 and the ‘103 P atents
claim language l a c k s a concrete structural e lem ent, a tie t o a particular

m achine or transf

orm ativ e p r o c e ss, or an im provem ent in the c o m

puter
techno l ogy

. Instead, the governm ent a r gues, the f irst patent f

am ily claim s recite generic com

puter com

ponents and cal c u l a tions without a required

com bination f

o r i m plem entation or som e other u nique e l em ent. The ‘012

P a t e n t claim 1, the g o vernm ent argues, am ounts to a m onopoly o n a proces s that can b e perf

orm ed by the hum an m i n d

, n a me l y “the a ge-old practice of looking at a target, t hrough a weapon sight 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 that the second p atent f am i l y c l a i m s are directed to the abstract idea of superim 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 d o es n ot alter the
character of the claim s f rom superim

posi t i o n o f im ages. I t argues t hat plaintif f ’s claim s of

f er o n l y w ell-known, patent-ineligible calculations to

accom plish t he r esult of the claim s, without providing a ny patentable structure or algorithm

.

SAIC respo n d s that none of the claim s are d irected to the underly ing
idea of superim

posing i m ages. It conte n d s t hat claim ing the m ethod and

sy stem of r e gistering im ages based on the u se of orientation and m otion

sensors d oes n ot constitute an a b s t r a c t i dea, avoiding preem ption of other

m ethods of r e gistering im ages. Plaintif f alleges that i ts p atents f ocus on solving a problem in the technology avai l a b l e f o r r egistering im a g es by

com bining orientation sensors a nd data, i nertial s ensors a nd mo tion data,

8boundary registration, and independently m o vable com ponents. SAIC argues that patent law does not require an im provem ent in the com

puter or a tie t o a specif i c m a chine or a p p a r a t u s , but that a patentee m ay i nstead p atent an unconventional solution to a problem in a m e thod previously em ploy ed in the industry

.

At 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 Circuit has adm on i s h e d t hat just
because the claim s involve an ab s t r a c t idea does not 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 the idea of superim posing one im age on a n o ther or whether the
claim s “recite m ore than a m ere result.” F i njan, Inc. v. B l u e Coat S ys., Inc.,

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

First, bef ore co m p a r i n g plaintif

f ’s claim language to other eligible subject m atter, the claim s of f er a n advance bey ond the prior a r t. The ‘012

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

, independently m o veable about m ultiple axes, i n order

to register im ages within accurate boundaries. The thi r d s t e p o f t he ‘012

m ethod claim ties to g e t h e r orientation d etection with the increased accuracy of how im ages are display ed, avoiding blurred, duplicative, or o b s cured

im a ges. The ‘103 Patent claim 1 likewise represents a n a dvan c e o v e r w hat

SAIC alleges was previously possible when c onnecting two f ields of vision in

one display

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

sensors w i t h a H U D, a video f eed, 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 ‘012 P atent and t h e ‘ 103 P atent explains that the prior art also placed one i m age on top of another, using a beam com

biner, but i t could not dy

n am ically com

pare, adjust, or reposition an im a ge using orientation data such that t he narrower f ield of v ision was display e d a ccurately in the transparent display

. The p rior t echnique superim posed b y sim

ply placing the narrower f

ield of v ision within t

h e broader

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

m ism atched boundaries, repetitive or obs c u r e i m ages, and the inability to

r e c a l culate with m o vem e nt. Plaintif f ’s patent claim s purport to s o lve these problem s in the process o f registering two independen t l y m oveable f ields of
vision.

9T h e second patent f am i ly claim s also of

f er an advance o ver the prior

art. Not unlike the ‘012 and ‘103 Pa t e n t s , t he ‘230 and ‘752 Patents are concerned with the p r o b l e m of identif y ing m atching regions in two f ields of
vision and accurately registering or replacing a portion of what c an be v iewed through t he t ransparent display with t he m a tching im age f rom t he video f

eed.
The independent m ethod claim 15 in the ‘230 Patent recites r e c e i v i ng video

im a ges and m o tion data f rom two video sources and then using the rela t i ve

m otion data captur e d b y sensors to i dentif y and 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 ages within t h e transparent disp 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 t he r equirem ent f or m anual recalibration f

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

parison d a t a t o a d

j u s t h ow “subsequent sensor-based locations are determ ined.” ‘752 Patent col. 2, ll. 28-29. Plaintif f ’s claim s t hus build on the

p r e vious techniques f

or superim

position b y i n c r e a s i n g a c c u r a c y a n d d e c r e a s i n g the need f o r m anual adjustm ents.

Plaintif f ’s patent claim s e a c h o f f er advancem ent over the prior approach, b ut def

e n d ant argues that regardless of any advance the SAIC claim s

are directed t o an abstract idea, b e c a u s e its inventions are tied only to using
conventional sensors and patent-ineligible c alculations. Yet the character of
these patent claim s i s not unlike others that have survived section 101 scrutiny

. The m ost sim ilar patent claim s are f oun d i n Thales Visionix

, 850 F.3d 1343,

1 3 4 4

. The court held that the claim s at i ssue in Thales Visionix were not
directed to a n abstract i dea. First, the Thales Visionix claim s o f f e r e d an im p rovem ent t o accuracy w hen “m easurin g relative position and orientation
of a m o ving objcet on a m o v i n g r e f erence f ram e.” Id. a t 1348. Although the
claim s involved a patent-ineligible equation, the patents coupled that equation
with an arrangem ent of sensors and an u nconventional ref e r e n c e 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.

M o r eover, the Federal Circuit in Thales Visionix ref l ected on t h e Suprem e Court’s decision in Diamond v. Diehr

, 450 U.S. 1 75, 177 (1981), in
which t he Court held p a tent claim 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

10f

or m olding raw, uncured rubber into cured rubber products. The invention in
Diamond used a well-known equation and elem ents of t he prior a rt, im p roving

u p o n what was p r esent in the industry b y m easuring tem perature c o nst a n t l y f r o m i n side the m old s uch that the opening of the press could be accurate l y tim ed. Id. T he invention produced “a r esult heretof o re unknown in the art.” Id.

at 1 9 3 n

. 1 5

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

process in which i t incorporates an equation t o 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 invalidated f or lack of novelty or obviousness. Id. at 188. W hen plaintif f ’s patent claim s a re com

pared 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 it a t i o n s f

ound in the Thales Visionix c l aim l anguage as well as an unconventional solution to problem s present in the prior art.

The T hales Visionix m ethod claim com prised “determ i n i n g an orientation of

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

rom

two inertial sensors m ounted respec t i v e ly on the object and on t he m oving

r e f e r e n ce f ram e.” Thales Visionix

, 8 50 F.3d at 1345. The ‘012 P atent independent m ethod claim likewise com p rises d eterm ining source orientation
of a video source and t h e source orientation of a transparent display

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

im a ges such that t h e b oundaries of t he display ed im ages register with the
boundaries of t he visual f ield that m atch those im ages. ‘012 Patent col. 9-10.
The ‘012 Patent does not s tate that sensors will be the tool to accom p lish the
orientation detection, but

the specif

ication sheds light on the character of the
pate n t by explaining t hat sensors are u sed to allow an adapted control

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 ot r ecite s t e p s i n term s of
determ ining relative o rientation, but they provide a com parable level of detail

to the Thales Visionix m ethod claim

. The second p atent f am i ly m ethod claim s

com bine a f irst v ideo source and a s econd video source to cr e ate im age registration b y “ r e ceiving m otion data,” “identif y ing, based o n the received

m otion data ” the part of t he video sources that are identical, p e r f o r m i n g 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 s ource in t he second video source.
The ‘ 230 and ‘752 independent m e thod claim s 7 and 15 track the relationship
between t wo video sources and accom pany ing m otion dat a r a t

h er than tracking
the relationship between a n object a n d a m oving r ef erence f r a m e, but both

11inventions use sensors to p erf o r m a c a lculation and p rovide m ore accurate
data.

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

to the sy stem cla i m i n T h ales Visionix. The independent sy s t em claim in
Thales Visioni

x c l a i me d a sy stem com prising: “(1) a f

irst inertial sensor

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

m oving p latf

orm ; and ( 3) an e l e me n t t h at uses the data f r om the t wo inertial

sensors to calculate the orientation of the tracked object relative to the m oving platf orm , as disclosed in the specif i cation.” 850 F.3d at 1345-4 6

. P l a i n t i f f ’s

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

irst orientation sensor adapted t o d e t ect an orientation of the video cam era;” “a second orientation

sensor adapted to detect an orientation of the HUD;” and “a com puter a dapted

to receive sensor data f

rom the f irst and s econd o rientation sensors

. . . ,” coupled with the video c am era adapted to provide a f eed representing portions
of the visual f

ield and the HUD adopted to view the visual f ield, both m ovable
about independent axes. ‘103 Patent col. 1 0

. The specif i cation is usef

ul f or explaining that t h e c a l c u lations that are involved use t he sensors and video

f eeds to m ap the c alculations to pixels, cropping, discarding, a nd e n h a n c i n g the overlay as necessary

. ‘103 Patent c ol. 6-7. The dif f erence b etween the t wo inventions is that the Thales Visionix clai ms c h a n g e d the ref e rence point f

or tracking relative orientation to a n u n c o n ventional m oving platf o rm whereas

SAIC purports t o introduce a new m ethod a n d s y s t e m that was never used
bef ore b y e mp l oy ing orientation sensors to relate and overlay location data
between two f

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

ram e ,” ‘103 col. 7, ll. 35-40.

T h e g o v e r n m ent argues t hat SAIC reaching a m o re accurate

, c o n t i n u o u s result b y c om

bining previously known com ponents a nd a com

puter adapted to perf orm particular calculations i s not s u f f icient t o bring the claim s within
section 101 eligible subject m atter. But the F ederal Circuit has also highlighted
the dif f erence b etween a patent-eligible claim introduci n g a signif icantly

im p roved process that incorporates k nown c om

ponents a n d a patent-ineligible

c laim that “ recites only ‘ well-unders t o o d

, r o 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 t he scientif ic 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 t hat k nown techniques or com

ponents m ay be
included in a claim when used in an unconventional way to acquire a n ew and
usef ul result.850 F.3d at 1349 (citing Enfish , 822 F.3d at 1337–38).

12The ‘012 m ethod c laim and t he ‘103 sy stem claim are d i r ected to

im p roving the prior process by using known com ponents in a n unconventional

way to register im a ges within accurate bounda r i es. Moreover, t he claim s anticipate t he use of independe n t l y m ovable i m age sources such that the
orientation sensing a nd boundary recognition process m u st be continuous. The

‘752 and ‘230 m ethod claim s f u rther describe how to com bine k n o wn

com ponents, including inertial sensors, to c om m unicate m otion data such t hat
the im ages can be accurately aligned a nd t he calibration process can be tied to
the collected l o c a t i on data. SAIC is not required to tie the claim language to

a particular m a c h i n e o r apparatus, Bilski v. Kappos

, 561 U.S. 593, 603-04 (2010), nor is SAIC required to dem onstrate a change in t h e c o m puter technology i t s e l f

, f or t hat is only one exam ple of a patentable technology invention, s e e Alice

, 134 S

. C t

. a t 2351, 2359 (discussing exam ples of what
constitutes “enough” to transf orm an abstract i dea into an inventive concept).

Plaintif f ’s pate n t s ’ claim language d oes not suf f er f rom the lack of

structure the Federal C ircuit 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 claim s did not of

f e r any thing m o re conc r e t e t h an a downloadable application to accom

plish a longstanding business practice. I d. at 1257. H ere, S AIC’s claim s disclosing how to accurately identif y and place i ma g e s b y specif i cally using orientation sensors or m otion d a t a t o allow a com puter to
identif y , com pare, and a djust im age s a r e m ore concrete than t he general
dissem ination of

content through a downloadable application.

M o reover, w e are not persuaded by def endant’s argum ent t h a t plaintif f ’s claim ed m e thods can be perf orm ed with just the hum a n e y e and a

weapon scope. The f

irst patent f

am il y c l a i m s p resent a solution to hum an lim itations and to the problem in the prior art of boundary r egistration working

in tandem with independently m ovable a xes. Although t he hum a n b rain is capable of m atching im a ges and e v aluating d if f erences, the ‘ 7 5 2 and ‘230

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

f ront of her. S

ee 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 in 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 to f

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

13W e d o , however, s hare def endant’s concern regarding the degree of
detail SAIC of

f ers in its claim language to explain how t he r e c i e p t a n d

i d e ntif ication of i m a ges and sensor data translates into accurate superim position. The least detailed of t he f our, the ‘012 Patent claim 1, adds boundary registra t i on to determ ining a source orientation and a display orientation, but does n ot of f er com paratively detailed s teps to t he other m ethod
claim s. Each of t he patent specif ications also i llustrate that any video source, transparent display source, corded or wireless connection, or brand of sensor

m ay be em

ploy ed to com

p lete any of the p atented p r o c e s s e s. The s pecif i cations
unif orm ly s tate that the steps prescribed by the claim s are not r e q uired to be perf orm ed in a particular order.

The Alice/Mayo test f

or section 101 analy sis, however, is not c oncerned
with whether an artisan skilled in the art can perf orm the m ethod claim ed by
the patent nor whether the claim language i s s u f f i c i e n t l y def

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

to a patent-ineligible s u b

j e c t m atter. Taken o n t he f ace of the claim s and the specif i cation, p laintif

f ’ s p atents com

b ine existing c om

puter technol o g y , sensors, a nd calculations in an unconventional way in order to reach a solution

to t he problem of a lignm 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 achievin g a c c uracy and consistency in im age registration, plaintif 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 pecif

ications, a re directed to a particular solu t i o n t o an industry problem and deploy an unconventional technique, it is unnecessary to

progress to Alice/Mayo step two to determ ine whether the paten t s t r ansf orm

an abstract idea with an inventive con 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