Opinion ID: 4517001
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Claims Fail to Recite an Inventive Concept

Text: Step two of the Alice inquiry is a search for other elements that transform the ineligible claims into significantly more than a patent upon the natural law or phenomenon. See Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72–73. Mayo made clear that transformation into a patent eligible application requires “more than simply stat[ing] the law of nature while adding the words ‘apply it.’” Id. at 72. In step two, we ask: “[w]hat else is there in the claims before us?” Id. at 78. This question is a lifeline, one that is limited to “additional features” of the claim that transforms the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application. Id. at 77; Ariosa, 788 F.3d at 1377. Case: 19-1419 Document: 55 Page: 28 Filed: 03/17/2020 ILLUMINA, INC. v. ARIOSA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. 13 For method claims that encompass natural phenom- ena, the method steps are the additional features that must be new and useful. See Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 591 (1978) (“The process itself, not merely the mathematical algorithm, must be new and useful.”). We must assess whether the additional features are new and useful within the field generally, not in the context of their particular application to the newly discovered phenomenon. See Roche Molecular, 905 F.3d at 1372; see also Athena, 915 F.3d at 754. The method steps under review fail to transform the nature of the claims into patent-eligible applications. The three claimed method steps of (a) extracting DNA, (b) producing a fraction of DNA by size discrimination, and (c) analyzing a genetic locus are not new, either alone or in combination. The written description indicates that the laboratory techniques of the claimed method are commercially available techniques. And the written description explains that step (b)’s producing a fraction by size discrimination “can be brought about by a variety of methods.” ’751 patent col. 2 ll. 49–51. For step two purposes, that the size discrimination and selective removal method steps were never before applied to the newly discovered natural phenomenon does not render those steps new and useful. See Roche Molecular, 905 F.3d at 1372; see also Athena, 915 F.3d at 754. In Roche Molecular, we held that the method claims at issue, which involved PCR amplification of DNA, did not contain an inventive concept notwithstanding that the inventors were the first to use PCR to detect the claimed natural phenomenon. Id. We reasoned that the claims did not contain an inventive concept because they did not “disclose any ‘new and useful’ improvement to PCR protocols or DNA amplification techniques in general.” Id.; see also Athena, 915 F.3d at 754 (noting that “to supply an inventive concept the sequence of claimed steps must do more than adapt a conventional assay to a newly discovered natural law”). Case: 19-1419 Document: 55 Page: 29 Filed: 03/17/2020 14 ILLUMINA, INC. v. ARIOSA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. Like in Roche Molecular, the claimed method steps here do not disclose any new and useful improvement to DNA separation techniques. They do not disclose an unconventional assay to the newly discovered natural phenomenon. Instead, they adapt commercially available DNA separation techniques to the natural phenomenon. The dependent claims also fail to transform the nature of the claims because they too rely on the same commercially available, routine, and conventional techniques as claim 1, only they provide more specificity on which techniques to use (e.g., ’751 patent, claim 7, identifies “density gradient centrifugation” for the claimed size discrimination method). Simply appending routine, conventional steps to a natural phenomenon, specified at a high level of generality, is not enough to supply an inventive concept. Thus, under step two, the claims of the patent in this appeal that are directed to patent ineligible subject matter are not transformed and made eligible under Alice step two.