Court Opinion

ID: 9957385
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-04 15:01:48.999291+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:17.970652
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-2109   Document: 61     Page: 1   Filed: 04/04/2024

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                 ______________________

                  AI VISUALIZE, INC.,
                    Plaintiff-Appellant

                            v.

     NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC., MACH7
             TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
               Defendants-Appellees
              ______________________

                       2022-2109
                 ______________________

     Appeal from the United States District Court for the
 District of Delaware in No. 1:21-cv-01458-RGA, Judge
 Richard G. Andrews.
                 ______________________

                 Decided: April 4, 2024
                 ______________________

    RAJKUMAR VINNAKOTA, Cole Schotz P.C., Dallas, TX,
 argued for plaintiff-appellant.  Also represented by
 TIMOTHY J.H. CRADDOCK, VISHAL H. PATEL.

    ANISH R. DESAI, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, New
 York, NY, argued for all defendants-appellees. Defendant-
 appellee Nuance Communications, Inc. also represented by
 DAVID JASON LENDER; AMANDA BRANCH, PRIYATA PATEL,
 Washington, DC; DAVID GREENBAUM, Greenbaum Law
 LLC, Englewood, NJ.
Case: 22-2109     Document: 61     Page: 2    Filed: 04/04/2024

 2         AI VISUALIZE, INC. v. NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

     ALAN RICHARD SILVERSTEIN, Connolly Gallagher LLP,
 Wilmington, DE, for defendant-appellee Mach7 Technolo-
 gies, Inc.
                ______________________

  Before MOORE, Chief Judge, REYNA and HUGHES, Circuit
                        Judges.
 REYNA, Circuit Judge.
     AI Visualize, Inc. sued Nuance Communications, Inc.
 and Mach7 Technologies, Inc. in the District of Delaware
 for patent infringement. Nuance and Mach7 moved to dis-
 miss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for fail-
 ure to state a claim. They argued that the asserted patent
 claims were directed to patent-ineligible subject matter
 and therefore invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The district
 court granted the motion, finding the asserted claims were
 directed to an abstract idea and failed to provide an in-
 ventive step that transformed that abstract idea into a pa-
 tent-eligible invention. The district court entered
 judgment and dismissed AI Visualize’s case. For the rea-
 sons below, we affirm.
                         BACKGROUND
                    A. The Asserted Patents
      The four patents at issue are U.S. Patent Nos.
 8,701,167 (’167 patent), 9,106,609 (’609 patent), 9,438,667
 (’667 patent), and 10,930,397 (’397 patent). They are part
 of the same patent family and share substantially the same
 specification. 1 The field of the asserted patents generally
 relates to visualization of medical scans. Each patent is
 titled “Method and system for fast access to advanced vis-
 ualization of medical scans using a dedicated web portal.”

     1   We refer to the ’609 patent specification for all four
 asserted patents.
Case: 22-2109     Document: 61      Page: 3    Filed: 04/04/2024

 AI VISUALIZE, INC. v. NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.            3

     According to the patents, medical imaging systems like
 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans typically create a
 collection of two-dimensional cross-section images of a pa-
 tient’s body or organ. ’609 patent, 1:27–32. These images
 are often stored together at a centralized server as a three-
 dimensional collection of data representing the scanned
 area, referred to as a “volume visualization dataset” or
 “VVD”. Id. at 1:30–35. At the time of the invention, “[t]ech-
 nology exist[ed]” to use these VVDs “to present rich[] three-
 dimensional (3D) views from existing two-dimensional (2D)
 scans that may lead to better diagnosis and prognosis.” Id.
 at 1:22–25; see also id. at 1:35–46.
      But the inventors recognized complications with at-
 tempts to view portions of these large VVDs at a client com-
 puter. To look at a three-dimensional view, “either the
 user’s computer or a dedicated server need[ed] to be pow-
 erful enough to support [the] processing power and the 2D
 scans need[ed] to be directly available to the user’s com-
 puter via a high speed communication link.” Id. at 1:49–53.
 The patents thus explain that “[t]he present invention
 overcomes this limitation by teaching a method and system
 of a common and centralized infrastructure, for receiving,
 storing, processing and viewing large medical scans via a
 low-bandwidth web portal.” Id. at 1:58–62. They describe
 systems and methods for users to review three-dimensional
 (or higher dimension) “virtual views” of a VVD on a com-
 puter connected to the internet without having to transmit
 or locally store the entire VVD. Id. at 2:52–57.
      At issue in this appeal are claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 12, and 13
 of the ’167 patent; claims 1, 4, 6–9, 19, 20, 22, 25, and 26 of
 the ’609 patent; claims 1–3, 8, 9, 11, 14, and 15 of the ’667
 patent; and claims 1–3, 11–14, and 16–18 of the ’397 pa-
 tent. The parties agree that for purposes of a 35 U.S.C.
 § 101 analysis, these asserted claims can be sorted into
 three groups, with each group represented by one claim of
 the ’609 patent. See Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360,
 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding that claims may be treated
Case: 22-2109    Document: 61     Page: 4    Filed: 04/04/2024

 4         AI VISUALIZE, INC. v. NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

 as “representative” in a § 101 inquiry if a patentee makes
 no “meaningful argument for the distinctive significance of
 any claim limitations not found in the representative
 claim”).
     The claims in group 1 involve systems where a web ap-
 plication determines which frames of a virtual view, if any,
 are already stored locally on a user’s device; directs the
 server to create any necessary, additional frames for trans-
 mission to the user’s device; compiles at the user’s device
 the locally-stored and newly-received frames to create the
 desired virtual view; and displays the user’s requested vir-
 tual view. ’609 patent, claim 1. The parties agree that
 claim 1 of the ’609 patent is representative of the group 1
 claims. 2 Claim 1 recites:
         1. A system for viewing at a client device
         at a remote location a series of three-di-
         mensional virtual views over the Internet
         of a volume visualization dataset contained
         on at least one centralized database com-
         prising:
         at least one transmitter for accepting vol-
         ume visualization dataset from remote lo-
         cation and transmitting it securely to the
         centralized database;
         at least one central data storage medium
         containing the volume visualization da-
         taset;
         a plurality of servers in communication
         with the at least one centralized database

     2   The group 1 claims are: claims 1, 4, and 6–9 of the
 ’609 patent; claim 1 of the ’167 patent; claims 1–3 of the
 ’667 patent; and claims 1–3, 11–14, and 16–18 of the ’397
 patent.
Case: 22-2109    Document: 61     Page: 5     Filed: 04/04/2024

 AI VISUALIZE, INC. v. NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.          5

        and capable of processing the volume visu-
        alization dataset to create virtual views
        based on client request;
        a resource manager device for load balanc-
        ing the plurality of servers;
        a security device controlling the plurality of
        communications between a client device,
        and the server; including resource manager
        and central storage medium;
        at least one physically secured site for
        housing the centralized database, plurality
        of servers, at least a resource manager, and
        at least a security device;
        a web application adapted to satisfy a
        user’s request for the three-dimensional
        virtual views by: a) accepting at a remote
        location at least one user request for a se-
        ries of virtual views of the volume visuali-
        zation dataset, the series of views
        comprising a plurality of separate view
        frames, the remote location having a local
        data storage medium for storing frames of
        views of the volume visualization dataset,
        b) determining if any frame of the re-
        quested views of the volume visualization
        dataset is stored on the local data storage
        medium, c) transmitting from the remote
        location to at least one of the servers a re-
        quest for any frame of the requested views
        not stored on the local data storage me-
        dium, d) at at least one of the servers, cre-
        ating the requested frames of the requested
        views from the volume visualization da-
        taset in the central storage medium, e)
        transmitting the created frames of the re-
        quested views from at least one of the
Case: 22-2109      Document: 61    Page: 6     Filed: 04/04/2024

 6          AI VISUALIZE, INC. v. NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

         servers to the client device, f) receiving the
         requested views from the at least one
         server, and displaying to the user at the re-
         mote location the requested series of three-
         dimensional virtual views of the volume
         visualization dataset by sequentially dis-
         playing frames transmitted from at least
         one of the servers along with any frames of
         the requested series of views stored on the
         local data storage medium.
 Id. at claim 1.
     Claim 19 of the ’609 patent, a dependent claim that de-
 pends from claim 1, is representative of the group 2
 claims. 3 The claims in group 2 involve the same core sys-
 tem as the group 1 claims. The group 2 claims further re-
 quire that if a virtual view has been previously requested
 by a user, it is assigned a “unique identifiable key.” Id. at
 18:42–44. The web application compares the current user
 request for a virtual view to any previous user requests and
 determines whether any image frames with a correspond-
 ing unique identifiable key are already locally stored. Id.
 at 18:48–60.
     Claim 22 of the ’609 patent is representative of the
 group 3 claims. 4 Unlike the claims in groups 1 and 2, the
 claims in group 3 do not include the step of initially check-
 ing to see whether any frames for the user’s requested vir-
 tual view are stored locally. See generally id. at 19:26–51.
 The web application requests all the frames from the

     3   The group 2 claims are: claims 19–20 of the ’609
 patent; claims 6–7 of the ’167 patent; and claims 8–9 of the
 ’667 patent.
     4   The group 3 claims are: claims 22, 25, and 26 of the
 ’609 patent; claims 9, 12, and 13 of the ’167 patent; and
 claims 11, 14, and 15 of the ’667 patent.
Case: 22-2109     Document: 61     Page: 7    Filed: 04/04/2024

 AI VISUALIZE, INC. v. NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.           7

 centralized server. The server transmits lower-quality ver-
 sions of the frames for immediate viewing. It then trans-
 mits the higher-quality versions.
                     B. Procedural History
      In October 2021, AI Visualize sued Appellees Nuance
 Communications, Inc. and Mach7 Technologies, Inc. (col-
 lectively, Nuance) in the District of Delaware for patent in-
 fringement. After Nuance moved to dismiss AI Visualize’s
 complaint for failure to state a claim, AI Visualize filed a
 first amended complaint. Nuance again moved to dismiss.
 AI Visualize, Inc. v. Nuance Commc’ns, Inc., 610 F. Supp.
 3d 638, 640–41 (D. Del. 2022) (“Decision”). It argued that
 the amended complaint should be dismissed because the
 asserted claims were directed to patent-ineligible subject
 matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Id.
      In its decision regarding the motion, the district court
 first observed that “[n]either party has argued that the
 Amended Complaint provides any additional information
 relevant to the patent eligibility of the Asserted Claims and
 neither party asserts that claim construction is needed.”
 Id. at 644. The district court then reviewed the claims, ap-
 plying the two-step Alice inquiry, and concluded that all
 the asserted claims were patent-ineligible. See id. at 649.
     Turning to Alice step one, the district court concluded
 that all the asserted claims are directed to the abstract idea
 of “retrieving user-requested, remotely stored infor-
 mation.” See, e.g., id. at 646. The district court reviewed
 the specification and found that the asserted patents at-
 tempted to address prior art problems with transmitting
 large VVDs over a standard internet connection. Id. The
 district court stated that the focus of the claimed advance
 over the prior art is “selectively accessing user-requested
 data, remotely, that is stored in a centralized storage loca-
 tion.” Id. It rejected AI Visualize’s arguments that the
 claims are directed to improvements in computer function-
 ality. Id.
Case: 22-2109     Document: 61      Page: 8     Filed: 04/04/2024

 8          AI VISUALIZE, INC. v. NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

     At Alice step two, the district court independently con-
 sidered each of the three representative claims. It con-
 cluded that no claim limitations transformed the
 representative claims into a patent-eligible applications of
 an abstract idea. For example, for the group 1 claims, the
 district court found that the “inventive component of
 Claim 1 is the ability to obtain virtual views of a VVD over
 a low bandwidth, high latency network.” Id. at 647 (inter-
 nal quotations omitted). It then stated that only one limi-
 tation in Claim 1 related to “achieving that stated goal,”
 and concluded that the limitation was “claimed function-
 ally, at a high level of generality,” such that it did not save
 the claims from abstraction. Id. at 647–48. It conducted a
 similar Alice step two inquiry for the group 2 and group 3
 claims, and ultimately held all asserted claims patent-inel-
 igible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See id. at 648–49.
    AI Visualize appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28
 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
                          DISCUSSION
     We review the grant of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dis-
 miss under the law of the applicable regional circuit, in this
 case, the Third Circuit. Endo Pharms. Inc. v. Teva Pharms.
 USA, Inc., 919 F.3d 1347, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2019). The Third
 Circuit reviews de novo a district court’s grant of a
 Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Id. (citing Ballentine v.
 United States, 486 F.3d 806, 808 (3d Cir. 2007)). To survive
 a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a complaint must allege “enough
 facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
 Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
     Section 101 of the Patent Act provides that: “Whoever
 invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine,
 manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and
 useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor,
 subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.”
 35 U.S.C. § 101. But § 101 “contains an important implicit
 exception: Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and
Case: 22-2109    Document: 61     Page: 9    Filed: 04/04/2024

 AI VISUALIZE, INC. v. NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.         9

 abstract ideas are not patentable.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v.
 CLS Bank Intern., 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014) (citations omit-
 ted). The Supreme Court has articulated a two-step test,
 commonly referred to as the “Alice” test, for examining
 whether a patent claims patent-ineligible subject matter.
 Id. at 217–18. Under step one of the Alice test, we review
 whether a claim is directed to a patent-ineligible concept
 like an abstract idea. Id. at 217. If the answer is no, then
 the inquiry ends. Id. But if the answer is yes, the inquiry
 proceeds to the second step. Id. At step two, we review
 whether the claim recites elements sufficient to transform
 it into a patent-eligible application. Id. at 217–18.
     We review § 101 patent eligibility under Federal Cir-
 cuit law. Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chi. Transit
 Auth., 873 F.3d 1364, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Eligibility is
 ultimately a question of law that may be based on underly-
 ing factual findings. Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1365. And it
 may be resolved on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion “where the un-
 disputed facts, considered under the standards required by
 that Rule, require a holding of ineligibility under the sub-
 stantive standards of law.” SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic,
 LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1166 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
                       A. Alice Step One
     Under Alice step one, we consider whether the claims
 at issue are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter,
 here, an abstract idea. This “directed to” inquiry does more
 than “simply ask whether the claims involve a patent-inel-
 igible concept.” Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d
 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (emphasis in original). Instead,
 we must look to the character of the claims as a whole to
 determine whether they are “directed to” patent-ineligible
 subject matter. Id.
     We often conduct the Alice step one inquiry by examin-
 ing the “focus of the claimed advance over the prior
 art.” Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838
 F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also Enfish, 822 F.3d
Case: 22-2109    Document: 61     Page: 10    Filed: 04/04/2024

 10        AI VISUALIZE, INC. v. NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

 at 1335. In the realm of computer-related technology, such
 as in this case, patent claims may be non-abstract at Alice
 step one if the focus of the claimed advance is on an im-
 provement in computer technologies, rather than the mere
 use of computers. Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The claims must “fo-
 cus on a specific means or method that improves the rele-
 vant technology.” McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am.
 Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
     We determine if the claim’s character as a whole is di-
 rected to ineligible subject matter by considering the claim
 limitations that are purported to describe the claimed ad-
 vance over the prior art. Free Stream Media Corp. v. Al-
 phonso Inc., 996 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2021). We
 recognize the focus of the claims without characterizing the
 claims at too high of a level of generality, untethered from
 the claim language itself. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1337. Fi-
 nally, we consider the claims in light of the specification
 but avoid importing concepts from the specification into the
 claims. ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d
 759, 767, 769 (Fed. Cir. 2019); cf. Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
      We agree with the district court that at Alice step one,
 all the asserted claims were directed to an abstract idea.
 See, e.g., Decision, 610 F. Supp. 3d at 646. We have ex-
 plained that the steps of obtaining, manipulating, and dis-
 playing data, particularly when claimed at a high level of
 generality, are abstract concepts. See, e.g., Elec. Power
 Grp., 830 F.3d at 1353–54 (collecting cases). Here, the
 claims in groups 1 and 2 recite a system that includes the
 functionally-oriented steps of: storing data (VVD) on a
 server, accepting user requests to view a portion of that
 data (virtual views), checking for the location of all data
 needed for the virtual view, “creating” image frames from
 any non-locally-stored virtual view data, transmitting all
 non-locally-stored image frames to the user, compiling all
 image frames, and sequentially displaying the image
Case: 22-2109    Document: 61     Page: 11    Filed: 04/04/2024

 AI VISUALIZE, INC. v. NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.         11

 frames to the user. See ’609 patent, claim 1. The group 3
 claims are similar. They involve transmitting two versions
 of all frames—initial, low-quality versions followed by
 higher-quality versions—from the server to the user. Id.
 at claim 22. In other words, the asserted claims are di-
 rected to converting data and using computers to collect,
 manipulate, and display the data.
     We reached a similar conclusion in Hawk Tech. Sys.,
 LLC v. Castle Retail, LLC, 60 F.4th 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2023).
 Hawk considered patent claims involving “viewing multi-
 ple simultaneously displayed and stored video images on a
 remote viewing device of a video surveillance system.” Id.
 at 1352. The patent holder emphasized that the claims re-
 quired converting video data using certain parameters in
 such a manner that the data could be manipulated and dis-
 played to conserve bandwidth and preserve the data qual-
 ity. Id. at 1357. But “converting information from one
 format to another . . . is an abstract idea.” Id.
     AI Visualize argues that the claims are not directed to
 an abstract idea because the claims require the creation of
 “on the fly” virtual views at a client computer. See, e.g.,
 Appellant Br. 28–29; Reply Br. 4. But the claim language
 makes clear that virtual view “creation” is achieved by the
 manipulation of a portion of the existing VVD. See, e.g.,
 ’609 Patent, 17:25–27, 17:38–39. For example, Claim 1 of
 the ’609 patent requires “accepting at a remote location at
 least one user request for a series of virtual views of the
 volume visualization dataset” and “creating the requested
 frames of the requested views from the volume visualiza-
 tion dataset.” Id. (emphasis added). As in Hawk, this “cre-
 ation” of a virtual view from the existing VVD, recited in
 general terms, is abstract data manipulation.
     AI Visualize points to multiple passages of the specifi-
 cation to support its view that “creation” of virtual views
 provides a technical solution to a technical problem, includ-
 ing one passage that addresses dynamic and static virtual
Case: 22-2109    Document: 61     Page: 12   Filed: 04/04/2024

 12        AI VISUALIZE, INC. v. NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

 views by describing how related image frames are selected
 from a VVD. See id. at 9:34–52. As noted, we refuse to
 import details from the specification if those details are
 themselves not claimed. ChargePoint, 920 F.3d at 769.
 There is no recitation in the claim about how to create
 frames or virtual views, much less in a manner that would
 meaningfully support a technical solution to a technical
 problem in the prior art.
     We conclude that the asserted claims are directed to an
 abstract idea.
                       B. Alice Step Two
     AI Visualize argues that to the extent the claims are
 found to be patent-ineligible at Alice step one, the claims
 are made patent-eligible at Alice step two.
     At Alice step two, we consider the claim elements indi-
 vidually and as an ordered combination to assess whether
 they “transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligi-
 ble application of the abstract idea.” Two-Way Media Ltd.
 v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1338
 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citation omitted). At this step we must
 ask: “[w]hat else is there in the claims before us?” Mayo
 Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Lab’ys, Inc., 566 U.S.
 66, 78 (2012). To survive at Alice step two, a claim must
 recite something “significantly more” than an abstract idea
 itself. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18. A claim cannot rest on
 the patent-ineligible concept alone to transform the inven-
 tion into something significantly more than that concept.
 BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290
 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Nor can claim elements or combinations
 of claim elements that are routine, conventional, or well-
 known transform the claims. Id. at 1290–91.
     Although Alice step two involves a question of law,
 whether a claim limitation or combination of limitations is
 well-understood, routine, and conventional may involve an
 underlying factual question. Id. at 1290 (“Whether a
Case: 22-2109    Document: 61      Page: 13    Filed: 04/04/2024

 AI VISUALIZE, INC. v. NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.          13

 combination of claim limitations supplies an inventive con-
 cept that renders a claim ‘significantly more’ than an ab-
 stract idea to which it is directed is a question of law.
 Underlying factual determinations may inform this legal
 determination.”). Thus, at the motion to dismiss stage, “pa-
 tentees who adequately allege their claims contain in-
 ventive concepts survive a § 101 eligibility analysis under
 Rule 12(b)(6).” Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Soft-
 ware, Inc., 882 F.3d 1121, 1126–27 (Fed. Cir. 2018); see also
 Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc., 927 F.3d 1306, 1317–18
 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Conclusory allegations, Simio, LLC v.
 FlexSim Software Prod., Inc., 983 F.3d 1353, 1365 (Fed.
 Cir. 2020), or those “wholly divorced” from the claims or the
 specification, Cellspin, 927 F.3d at 1317, cannot defeat a
 motion to dismiss. And a patentee that emphasizes a
 claim’s use of certain technology, for example, a general-
 purpose computer, fails at step two when the intrinsic rec-
 ord establishes that the technology is conventional or well-
 known in the art. See, e.g., Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp. v. Zillow
 Grp., Inc., 50 F.4th 1371, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2022).
      Here, the district court observed that AI Visualize
 made no arguments regarding additional allegations in the
 amended complaint, nor presented any assertions that the
 construction of certain claim terms was relevant to the Al-
 ice inquiry. Decision, 610 F. Supp. 3d at 644. Based on its
 review of the intrinsic record and the allegations in the
 complaint, the district court ultimately concluded that each
 group of asserted claims involved nothing more than the
 abstract idea itself or conventional computer functions or
 components. Id. at 647–49. For example, for both group 2
 and 3 claims, the district court determined the alleged in-
 ventive concepts in the claims were no more than the ab-
 stract ideas themselves. Id. at 648–49. It determined that
 nothing in the claim limitations transformed the abstract
 nature of the claims into patent-eligible subject matter. Id.
 at 647–49. We agree.
Case: 22-2109    Document: 61      Page: 14    Filed: 04/04/2024

 14        AI VISUALIZE, INC. v. NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

     AI Visualize argues that the creation of virtual views
 sufficiently transforms the claims into patent-eligible sub-
 ject matter. See, e.g., Appellant Br. 43–45; Reply Br. 26.
 But as we noted above, the claimed step of creating a vir-
 tual view is itself an abstract idea. See Hawk, 60 F.4th
 at 1359. Moreover, the intrinsic record undermines AI Vis-
 ualize’s argument by showing that virtual views were
 known in the art. ’609 patent, 1:22–25. The shared speci-
 fication provides that technology existed at the time of the
 invention “to present richer three-dimensional (3D) views
 from existing two-dimensional (2D) scans that may lead to
 better diagnosis and prognosis.” Id. AI Visualize acknowl-
 edged this at oral argument. See, e.g., Oral Arg. 2:40–3:13.
      AI Visualize also argues that creation of virtual views
 “on demand” or in “real-time” in response to a user request
 transforms the claims into something “significantly more”
 than the abstract idea. See, e.g., Appellant Br. 43. We are
 not persuaded. In Affinity Labs, we found claims involving
 a “customized user interface” failed to recite an inventive
 concept. Affinity Labs, 838 F.3d at 1271–72. Without a
 “concrete application of the abstract idea of delivering con-
 tent,” the claims were not transformed into patent-eligible
 subject matter at Alice step two. Id. at 1272. Similarly in
 Electric Power Group, the claimed invention purported to
 pull information regarding power grid operations from
 many sources, process and analyze it, and display relevant
 data to a user “in real time”. Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at
 1356. Because the claims disclosed only “entirely conven-
 tional, generic technology,” they remained patent-ineligi-
 ble at Alice step two. Id. As in Affinity Labs and Electric
 Power, AI Visualize’s amended complaint has not made
 sufficient factual allegations to support that the claims in-
 volve unconventional technology or a concrete application
 of the abstract idea of virtual view “creation.” AI Visual-
 ize’s claim that the “virtual views” are created “on the fly,”
 without more, cannot support patent eligibility at Alice
 step two.
Case: 22-2109    Document: 61     Page: 15    Filed: 04/04/2024

 AI VISUALIZE, INC. v. NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.         15

     AI Visualize’s amended complaint also failed to ade-
 quately allege an inventive concept in the ordered combi-
 nation of claim limitations. “[M]erely reciting an abstract
 idea performed on a set of generic computer components,
 as [the claims] do[] here, would ‘not contain an inventive
 concept.’” Two-Way Media, 874 F.3d at 1339 (quoting
 BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility
 LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). We therefore
 agree with the district court that AI Visualize’s claims are
 not saved at Alice step two.
     We hold that the asserted claims are patent ineligible
 because they are directed to an abstract idea and fail to
 transform that abstract idea into patent-eligible subject
 matter.
                        CONCLUSION
     We have considered AI Visualize’s other arguments
 and find them unpersuasive. For the above reasons, we
 hold that the asserted claims are directed to patent-ineligi-
 ble subject matter. We thus affirm the district court’s dis-
 missal under Rule 12(b)(6) based on subject matter
 ineligibility under § 101.
                        AFFIRMED
                            COSTS
 No costs.