Opinion ID: 867144
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Gottschalk v. Benson

Text: In Benson, the Supreme Court considered claims to computer-implemented methods “for converting binarycoded decimal (BCD) numerals into pure binary numerals.” 409 U.S. at 64. The claims each recited a series of 10 CLS BANK INTERNATIONAL v. ALICE CORPORATION data manipulation steps for effecting the indicated numerical conversion and “purported to cover any use of the claimed method in a general-purpose digital computer of any type.” Id. Analyzing the claimed processes in view of its historical precedents, the Supreme Court concluded that the abstract ideas exception to patent eligibility applied. The Court identified the particular abstraction at issue as the freestanding “algorithm” or “generalized formulation” for performing BCD to pure binary conversion. Id. at 65. Next, the Court measured the scope of the claims against the scope of that overarching abstract idea. In practice, the claims were “so abstract and sweeping as to cover both known and unknown uses of the BCD to pure binary conversion” and would thus reach every application of the basic conversion algorithm, in contrast to earlier cases concerning patent-eligible process claims that had been cabined to discrete applications “sufficiently definite to confine the patent monopoly within rather definite bounds.” Id. at 68–69. Furthermore, even though the claims required a computer, 2 the Court did not view that as a meaningful limitation: “The mathematical formula involved here has no substantial practical application except in connection with a digital computer, which means that if the judgment below is affirmed, the patent would wholly pre-empt the mathematical formula and in practical effect would be a patent on the algorithm itself.” 2 Claim 8 required a computer on its face, but the literal terms of claim 13 were not so limited. See Benson, 409 U.S. at 73–74. The CCPA, however, had interpreted both claims as requiring a computer and had upheld them on that basis, see In re Benson, 441 F.2d 682, 687–88 (CCPA 1971), and the Supreme Court appeared to adopt that assumption. CLS BANK INTERNATIONAL v. ALICE CORPORATION 11 Id. at 71–72. Accordingly, the claims were held ineligible for patenting under § 101.