by Steve Driskill | Oct 11, 2016 | [sub] Alice step one, Subject Matter Eligibility
The automation of rule-processing is a merely directed to an abstract idea if it is the automation rather than the rule that improves a technological process. Here, for example, claims reciting the automation of fraud and misuse detection were found to be directed to...
by Steve Driskill | Sep 30, 2016 | [sub] Alice step two, Subject Matter Eligibility
Novelty and non-obviousness do not alone resolve the question of inventive concept at the second step of Mayo/Alice. Here, for example, although the prior art did not disclose the idea of “determining” and “outputting” a particular type of e-mail, these operations...
by Steve Driskill | Sep 26, 2016 | [sub] claim context, Claim Interpretation
A functionally-described element “adapted to” perform a plurality of functions does not exclude multiple elements performing those functions when no structural limitations are recited. Here, for example, a “link program” adapted to “both … interrupt streaming of the...
by Steve Driskill | Sep 23, 2016 | [sub] Alice step two, Subject Matter Eligibility
A mere functionally described display of information does not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Here, for example, the novel use of a downloadable application for out-of-region delivery of regional broadcast content was found to lack an inventive...
by Steve Driskill | Sep 23, 2016 | [sub] Alice step two, Subject Matter Eligibility
User-based customization does not by itself amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Here, for example, a network-based media system having “a customized user interface page for [a] given user” was found to be nothing more than an abstract idea because...
