Source: https://www.ipmvs.com/filewrapper/federal-circuit-reviews-quot-abstract-quot-exception-to-patent-eligible-subject-matter
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 13:35:56+00:00

Document:
The Federal Circuit recently revisited the issue of patentable subject matter under § 101 of the Patent Act in light of the Supreme Court’s Bilski decision. In Research Corporation Technologies, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation, the Federal Circuit determined that the claimed methods relating to half-toning digital images were not abstract and satisfied the requirements of § 101. This appears to be a very patent-friendly decision. It does not employ the machine-or-transformation test, but instead requires that a claim be manifestly abstract before it is determined to be invalid as an exception to the broad categories of patent-eligible subject matter identified by § 101.
More details of Research Corporation Technologies, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation after the jump.
In its Bilski decision, the Supreme Court identified three categories of innovations that would not be eligible for patent protection: abstract ideas, natural phenomena, and laws of nature. The Supreme Court rejected the Federal Circuit's proposed machine-or-transformation test as the exclusive test for patent-eligible subject matter, but indicated that it was still a valuable tool in analyzing the issue. In determining whether the halftoning claims at issue in the present case were appropriate subject matter for patent protection, the Federal Circuit did not utilize the machine-or-transformation test. Instead its methodology was to first look at whether the claimed invention nominally fell within the scope of § 101. Since the claim recites a “method” and method is included within the definition of “process,” the claim facially falls within the subject matter of § 101. The Federal Circuit then looked to see whether despite nominally satisfying § 101, the claims were nonetheless excluded from § 101 by one of the three exceptions identified by the Supreme Court.
The court also looked at the issue of who has the burden of establishing the right to claim priority to an earlier-filed patent application. In this case, Research Corporation Technologies claimed that the burden was on Microsoft to establish that the claims were not supported by the earlier-filed application. The court determined that the burden is on the patent owner to establish that the claims of the later filed patent are supported by the earlier application from which priority is claimed.

References: § 101
 v. 
 § 101
 § 101
 v. 
 § 101
 § 101
 § 101
 § 101