Court Opinion

ID: 9488336
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 12:42:10.160874+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:52:49.429345
License: Public Domain

*808NIES, Circuit Judge,
dissenting, with whom MICHEL, Circuit Judge, joins.
The majority’s action is unconventional. Acting on a combined petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing in banc, the majority vacates the Board decisions and the December 19, 1994, panel decision affirming the underlying Board decisions, and remands to the Board. Yet, neither Trovato nor the PTO ask for a remand. No reasons are stated for the vacaturs. I must respectfully dissent from this Order.
What message does the court’s vacatur of the panel opinion send to the Board? That the claims are statutory? Certainly not. The result of this Order is simply that Trova-to’s application will stand before the Board for review of the Examiner’s § 101 rejections. Furthermore, what message does the court’s vacatur of the Board decision send to the Board? Was its analysis of precedent wrong, or is our prior precedent jettisoned along with the panel’s opinion in this case?
There has been no official change in the Patent Office’s procedure for determining statutory subject matter. The Order states that the Board is to reconsider the case in light of “any new guidelines adopted by the Patent and Trademark Office for examination of computer-implemented inventions.” Although guidelines have been proposed, the process has barely begun. Adoption of the guidelines is not on the immediate horizon. Is the majority ordering a stay of Trovato’s application indefinitely until the new guidelines are issued, or can the Board proceed without them? What if the PTO decides to revise or not to adopt the guidelines?
Even if new guidelines are adopted, they must yield to precedent from this court and the Supreme Court, i.e. the law on § 101. Neither this court nor the Supreme Court has addressed § 101 since the panel opinion was issued. The law has not changed. Remarkably, the majority states that the proposed guidelines are “consistent with Alap-pat ”. Should statements regarding the propriety of any Agency guidelines, let alone proposed guidelines, be made without the assistance of briefing and/or oral argument or analysis? The proposed guidelines do more than just “direct examiners to apply all of the requirements of Title 35.” For example, under the section titled “Procedures To Be Followed When Evaluating Computer-Implemented Inventions,” there are a number of “presumptions” about what does and does not constitute a statutory “process,” “machine” and “article of manufacture.” Where did these presumptions come from? It appears that the majority provides an advisory opinion endorsing the proposed guidelines.
The Order also states that “the case is remanded for reconsideration in light of Alappat.” The Order does not state that the panel opinion was contrary to any of this court’s precedent, including Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526, 31 USPQ2d 1545 (1994), discussed at length therein. It is true that the language of Trovato’s claims and Alappat’s claims is alike, and that Alappat’s claims were held to meet § 101 while Trovato’s were not. The similar words in these claims does not end the § 101 analysis. Both Trovato and Alap-pat opted to use “means for” language. According to § 112, ¶ 6, we must look to the specification to flesh out the claims. Under Alappat, the command of § 112 ¶ 6 applies to determinations under § 101. Alappat’s specification, unlike Trovato’s, disclosed specific structure for the particular “means” claimed. Trovato disclosed no structure but merely a mathematical formula. Thus, Alappat does not address the particular question here of whether Trovato’s claims constitute statutory subject matter.
If the majority believes the panel opinion is in some way contrary to Alappat, or that the precedent relied upon in the panel opinion should be overturned, the court should so state with explanation for the benefit of others. This Order does a disservice to the Board, the Bar, and this court. I dissent.