Opinion ID: 4542831
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: A method for backing up data stored on a mobile

Text: customer premises equipment comprising the steps of: storing data at the mobile customer premises equipment; formatting the data stored at the mobile customer premises equipment into fields by determining data fields, identifying which portions of said data correspond to a respective data field, and tagging said data[;] transmitting the data with a user ID from the mo- bile customer premises equipment across a mobile network to a server for storage; Case: 19-1765 Document: 48 Page: 14 Filed: 06/19/2020 14 DROPBOX, INC. v. SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES, INC retrieving said data from said server across a mo- bile network in response to one of an expiration of time and request from said mobile customer prem- ises equipment by transmitting said data to said mobile customer premises equipment; and transmitting said data to said mobile customer premises equipment by transmitting the data in more than one information signal and sequentially numbering each of said information signals. ’541 Patent at col. 10 l. 52–col. 11 l. 4. According to the district court, “[c]laim 1 is straightforward” and “abstract because first, it only discloses generalized steps to carry out generic computer functions, and second, because there are long-standing practices analogous to the claimed steps.” Orcinus Holdings, 379 F. Supp. 3d at 874. In a short, alternative analysis, the district court found claim 1 abstract because it recited essentially the same process as a person manually transferring data from one mobile device to another, with the person herself acting as the “server.” Id. at 878–79. In its longer, main analysis, the district court focused on how the features corresponded to generalized steps carrying out generic computer functions. The district court pointed out how the specification itself declares each element of the claim to be a generic computer component. Id. at 874–75. The district court found that the patent fails to provide specific explanations or technical details describing how it improves the functionality of the generic components; it therefore found claim 1 directed to an abstract idea because “claim 1 discloses well-known steps to be executed on generic computing devices.” Id. at 877. The court further found that none of the components individually claimed an inventive concept because they were all concededly generic. Id. at 879–80. Nor, per the court, did the elements do so as an ordered combination, because they were arranged in a conventional manner. Id. at 881. Case: 19-1765 Document: 48 Page: 15 Filed: 06/19/2020 DROPBOX, INC. v. SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES, INC 15 We agree with the district court once more. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. The nature of the “claimed advance” of the patent—which Dropbox asserts to be “a unified tag and data structure,” including transmitting data with an accompanying user ID and “remote server synchronization for wirelessly backing up data,” Appellants’ Br. 20–21—reveals an abstract idea at the heart of claim 1. “‘[G]eneralized steps to be performed on a computer using conventional computer activity’ are abstract[.]” RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 672 (2018). “Formatting” data, “tagging” data, “transmitting” data, and “retrieving” data are generalized steps to be performed on a computer using conventional computer activity. Their combination may allow “wireless backup of cellphone data.” Appellants’ Br. 56 (emphasis omitted). But the claim provides less of “a specific means or method” than “a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely invokes generic processes and machinery.” Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Nor do these data tagging and remote synchronization steps yield an inventive concept. The ’541 patent itself teaches that the two allegedly inventive concepts were routine and conventional. ’541 Patent at col. 3 ll. 24–29, 34– 36. Dropbox argues that the combination of the two concepts is inventive because “[t]he ’541 patent’s data structure allows the data to be formatted in a way that makes data transfer reliable and efficient.” Appellants’ Br. 60. But “[t]o save a patent at step two, an inventive concept must be evident in the claims.” Two-Way Media, 874 F.3d at 1338 (emphasis added). But no data structures—much less any inventive data structures—are evident in the claims. “[F]ormatting the data . . . into fields . . . and tagging said data” as recited in claim 1 does not describe an inventive data structure. The specification itself Case: 19-1765 Document: 48 Page: 16 Filed: 06/19/2020 16 DROPBOX, INC. v. SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES, INC contradicts Dropbox’s claim that the patent teaches an inventive data structure, explaining that the data structure “may be defined by a [mobile device] manufacturer,” and that methods known in the art (such as XML or html) “may be used to create the data structure.” ’541 Patent at col. 3 ll. 36–37, col. 6 ll. 60–61. We affirm the district court’s decision holding the ’541 patent invalid as ineligible under § 101.