Source: https://www.ptab.us/2017/03/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 10:06:08+00:00

Document:
We acknowledge that the lack of an antecedent basis for a claim term does not always render a claim indefinite. Bose Corp. v. JBL, Inc., 274 F.3d 1354, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2001). In this case, however, the term is unclear because the waveguide of claim 1 is not clearly limited to any particular geometry.
Our reviewing court has also made clear that abstract ideas include collecting information and analyzing that information “by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms.” FairWarningIP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093—94 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (internal citation omitted). Moreover, taking some action in response to the collected and analyzed information, without more, is also “abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis.” Id. (claims directed to collecting and analyzing information to detect misuse of protected health information and “notifying a user when misuse is detected.”) Put concisely, “[w]ithout additional limitations, a process that employs mathematical algorithms to manipulate existing information to generate additional information is not patent eligible.” Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
See also Intellectual Ventures v. Capital One, 2017 WL 900031,*5 (Fed. Cir. March 7, 2017), discussing cases in which claims reciting data manipulation steps were held to be patent ineligible as abstract ideas.
As our reviewing court recently reiterated, “organizing and accessing records through the creation of an index-searchable database, includes longstanding conduct that existed well before the advent of computers and the Internet,” and patent claims have been held ineligible for reciting similar abstract concepts that merely collect, classify, or otherwise filter data. Intellectual Ventures ILLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., Nos. 2016-1128, 2016-1132, 2017 WL 900018, at *7 (Fed. Cir. March 7, 2017). Moreover, the Federal Circuit has held “[w]ithout additional limitations, a process that employs mathematical algorithms to manipulate existing information to generate additional information is not patent eligible.” Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Taking up the first step of the patent-eligibility analysis, we find claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea. Per the Supreme Court’s holding in Diehr, claims are patent eligible under § 101 “when a claim containing a mathematical formula [or mental processes] implements or applies that formula in a structure or process which, when considered as a whole, is performing a function which the patent laws were designed to protect.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 (1981). In terms of the Alice test, the Diehr claims were directed to an improvement in the rubber curing process, not a mathematical formula or mental process and, so, not an abstract idea. See Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, — F.3d —, 2017 WL 914618 *3 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 8, 2017).
We find that Appellants have the better position. “A comparison of the claimed invention with the disclosure of each cited reference to determine the number of claim limitations in common with each reference, bearing in mind the relative importance of particular limitations, will usually yield the closest single prior art reference.” In re Merchant, 575 F.2d 865, 869 (CCPA 1978).
Finally, we agree with Appellants that requiring a comparison with clindamycin and lecithin, where Heide does not have such an example, “would amount to requiring comparison of the results of the invention with the results of the invention.” In re Chapman , 357 F.2d 418, 422 (CCPA 1966).
See, In re Gershon, 372 F.2d 535, 538 (CCPA 1967) (“Since the alleged problem in this case was first recognized by appellants, and others apparently have not yet become aware of its existence, it goes without saying that there could not possibly be any evidence of either a long-felt need in the . . . art for a solution to a problem of dubious existence or failure of others skilled in the art who unsuccessfully attempted to solve a problem of which they were not aware.”).
Nevertheless, as the Examiner points out, the claimed scheme is similar in character to the ranking of available therapeutic treatment regimens to guide the selection of a therapeutic treatment regimen covered by the claims at issue in SmartGene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological Labs., SA, 555 F. App'x 950 (Fed. Cir.), cert, denied, 135 S. Ct. 58, 190 L. Ed. 2d 32 (2014). There the court found “the mental steps of comparing new and stored information and using rules to identify medical options” to be an abstract idea.
We agree with Appellant. The broadest reasonable interpretation does not mean the broadest possible interpretation. See Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (stating that although claim terms must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation, the interpretation must still be reasonable). The claims do not recite “maintaining” a given throwback distance; rather the claim recites “adjustably maintaining” the throwback distance. The Examiner’s construction of “adjustably maintaining the throwback distance substantially constant” that covers a method where the throwback distance cannot be adjusted during printing would render the term “adjustably” superfluous and is unreasonable. See Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 395 F.3d 1364, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (rejecting a proposed claim construction that would render claim terms superfluous).

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