Opinion ID: 4524758
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Alice Step 2: Inventive Concept

Text: Nor do the claims recite any transformative inventive concept. We agree with the Board “that the additional elements of [the independent] claims . . . , both individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate . . . [the] abstract concepts, into a practical application.” Gopalan, 2019 WL 764513, at . The Board also correctly reasoned that performing the steps of the optimization technique “on a generic processor does not transform it into a patentable apparatus.” Id. at . Further, the limitation “implementing a measurement strategy [based on the number of independent measures] by placement of sensors or design components” is recited at “a high level of generality” with no details concerning how the sensors or components are placed or their design, as the Board explained. Id. at ; J.A. 32. Indeed, the specification does not recite any particular sensor placement or design, only generally stating that the specification’s “teachings can be applied . . . us[ing] offset measures of sensor based measurements” through “placement of sensors or design aberrations.” J.A. 64 ¶33. And Gopalan concedes that implementing the measurement strategy was well-known, because “anyone of skill in the art” would have known how to place the sensors to make the appropriate measurements once the measurement strategy was designed. Appellant’s Br. at 8, 19. Case: 19-2070 Document: 39 Page: 9 Filed: 04/13/2020 IN RE: GOPALAN 9