Lets’ B. Cereus, No Reasonable Fact Finder Could Find an Expectation of Success Based on the Teachings of a Prior Art Reference That Failed to Achieve That Which The Inventor Succeeds
Adele Critchley | December 6, 2021
University of Strathclyde vs., Clear-Vu Lighting LLC
Circuit Judges Reyna, Clevenger and Stoll (author).
Summary:
Here, the University of Strathclyde (Strathclyde herein after) appeals from a final written decision of the Patent Trail and Appeal Board holding claims 1 to 4 of U.S. Patent No. 9,839,706 unpatentable as obvious.
The patent relates to effective sterilization methods for environmental decontamination of air and surfaces of, amongst other antibiotic resistant Gram-positive bacteria, Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Specifically, sterilization is performed via photoinactivation without the need for a photosensitizing agent.
Claim 1[1] is as follows:
1. A method for disinfecting air, contact surfaces or materials by inactivating one or more pathogenic Gram-positive bacteria in the air, on the contact surfaces or on the materials, said method comprising exposing the one or more pathogenic Gram-positive bacteria to visible light without using a photosensitizer, wherein the one or more pathogenic Gram-positive bacteria are selected from the group consisting of Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), Coagulase-Negative Staphylococcus (CONS), Streptococcus, Enterococcus, and Clostridium species, and wherein a portion of the visible light that inactivates the one or more pathogenic Gram-positive bacteria consists of wavelengths in the range 400-420 nm, and wherein the method is performed outside of the human body and the contact surfaces or the materials are non-living.
The Board determined that claim 1 above would have been obvious over Ashkenazi in view of Nitzan. Ashkenazi is an article that discusses photoeradication of a Gram-positive bacterium, stating that “In the case of P. acnes (leading cause of acne) or other bacterial cells that produce porphyrins…. Blue light may photoinactivate the intact bacterial cells.” However, as noted by the CAFC, the methods of Ashkenazi always contained a photosensitive agent. Ashkenazi taught that increasing the light doses, the number of illuminations, and the length of time the bacteria are cultured resulted in greater inactivation.
The Nitzan article studied the effects of ALA (photosensitive agent) on Gram-positive bacteria, including MRSA. In Nitzan, for all the non-ALA MRSA cultures, it was reported therein that a 1.0 survival fraction was observed, meaning there was “no decrease in viability…after illumination” with blue light.
The Board ultimately held that Ashkenazi and Nitzan taught or suggested all the limitations of claim 1, and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these two references, and “would have had a reasonable expectation of successfully doing so.”
Although neither of the references achieved inactivation of any bacteria without using a photosensitizer, the Board nonetheless found that a skilled artisan would have reasonably expected “some” amount of inactivation because the claims “do not require any specific amount of inactivation.”
Ultimately, the CAFC disagreed with the Boards’ findings.
Initially, the CAFC emphasized that “[T]he substantial evidence standard asks ‘whether a reasonable fact finder could have arrived at the agency’s decision,’ and ‘involves examination of the record as a whole, taking into account evidence that both justifies and detracts from an agency’s decision.’” OSI Pharms., LLC v. Apotex Inc., 939 F.3d 1375, 1381–82 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2000)).
That, “An obviousness determination generally requires a finding that “all claimed limitations are disclosed in the prior art,” PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2014); cf. Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Google LLC, 948 F.3d 1330, 1337–38 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
“Whether the prior art discloses a claim limitation, whether a skilled artisan would have been motivated to modify or combine teachings in the prior art, and whether she would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so are questions of fact. Tech. Consumer Prods., Inc. v. Lighting Sci. Grp. Corp., 955 F.3d 16, 22 (Fed. Cir. 2020); OSI Pharm., 939 F.3d at 1382.
Here, “the only dispute is whether these references teach inactivating one of the claimed Gram-positive bacteria without using a photosensitizer.” The CAFC stated that the “Board’s finding that this was taught by the combination of Ashkenazi and Nitzan is not supported by substantial evidence.”
Claim 1 requires both (i) exposing the bacterial to 400 to 420 nm blue light without using a photosensitizers and (ii) that the bacteria are inactivated as a result. Here, Ashkenazi achieves inactivation after exposure to 407 to 420 nm blue light but with a photosensitizer. On the other hand, Nitzan provides an example in which MRSA is exposed to 407 to 420 nm blue light without a photosensitizer, but there is no evidence that Nitzan successfully achieved inactivation under the conditions.
The Board agreed with Clear-Vu’s argument that a skilled artisan would have prepared a MRSA culture according to the method described in Nitzan and applied Ashkenazi’s teaching that increasing the light energy, number of illuminations, and length of time the bacteria are cultured, and so arrived at the Patented claims.
However, the CAFC held that “given neither Ashkenazi nor Nitzan teaches or suggests inactivation of any bacteria without using a photosensitizer” they failed “to see why a skilled artisan would opt to entirely omit a photosensitizer when combining these references.” The CAFC stressed that Nitzan itself disclosed that a photosensitizer-free embodiment was “wholly unsuccessful in achieving inactivation.”
Again, the CAFC emphasized that claim 1 requires both (i) exposing the bacterial to 400 to 420 nm blue light without using a photosensitizers and (ii) that the bacteria are inactivated as a result, and declined Clear-Vu’s invitation to read the inactivation limitation in isolation divorced from the claim as a whole concluding that “Obviousness cannot be based on the hindsight combination of components selectively culled from the prior art to fit the parameters of the patented invention.”
Next, the CAFC analyzed the Board’s finding on reasonable expectation of success and again, declined to agree.
The Board had relied upon (i) both parties agreeing that MRSA naturally produces at least some amount of endogenous porphyrins and (ii) Ashkenazi’s teaching that “blue light may” inactivate “other bacterial cells that produce porphyrins.
Here, the CAFC focused on Nitzan, as evidence on record showing the opposite. The CAFC reaffirmed that “absolute predictability of success is not required, only a reasonable expectation.” In this case, where the prior art reference fails to “achieve that at which the inventors succeeded, no reasonable fact finder could find an expectation of success based on the teachings of that same prior art.”
Thus, the CAFC concluded that the Board’s finding was not supported by substantial evidence, and so reversed its obviousness determination.
Take-away:
- The substantial evidence standard asks ‘whether a reasonable fact finder could have arrived at the agency’s decision,’ and ‘involves examination of the record as a whole, taking into account evidence that both justifies and detracts from an agency’s decision.
- If a prior art reference fails to achieve that which the inventor succeeds, it can be argued that no reasonable fact finder could find an expectation of success based thereon.
[1] Claim 2 depends on claim 1. Claim 3 is independent, but contains the same contested features highlighted above in claim 1. Claim 4 is dependent on claim 3.
Prosecution history disclaimer dooms infringement case for patentee
WHDA Blogging Team | November 22, 2021
Traxcell Technologies, LLC v. Nokia Solutions and Networks
Decided on October 12, 2021
Prost, O’Malley, and Stoll (opinion by Prost)
Summary
Patentee’s arguments during prosecution distinguishing the claimed invention over prior art were found to be clear and unmistakable disclaimer of certain meanings of the disputed claim terms. The prosecution history disclaimer resulted in claim constructions that favored the accused infringer and compelled a determination of non-infringement.
Details
Traxcell Technologies LLC specializes in navigation technologies. The company was founded by Mark Reed, who is also the sole inventor behind U.S. Patent Nos. 8,977,284, 9,510,320, and 9,642,024 that Traxcell accused Nokia of infringing.
The 284, 320, and 024 patents are directly related to each other as grandparent, parent, and child, respectively. The three patents are concerned with self-optimizing wireless network technology. Specifically, the patents claim systems and methods for measuring the performance and location of a wireless device (for example, a phone), in order to make “corrective actions” to or tune a wireless network to improve communications between the wireless device and the network.
The asserted claims from the three patents require a “first computer” (or in some of the asserted claims, simply “computer”) that is configured to perform several functions related to the “location” of a mobile wireless device.
Central to the parties’ dispute was the proper constructions of “first computer” and “location”.
Nokia’s accused geolocation system was undisputedly a self-optimizing network product. Nokia’s system performed similar functions as those claimed in the asserted computers, but across multiple computers. Nokia’s system also collected performance information for mobile wireless devices located within 50-meter-by-50-meter grids.
To avoid infringement, Nokia argued that the claimed “first computer” required a single computer performing the claimed functions, and that the claimed “location” required more than the use of a grid.
On the other hand, wanting to capture Nokia’s products, Traxcell argued that the claimed “first computer” encompassed embodiments in which the claimed functions were spread among multiple computers, and that the claimed “location” plainly included a grid-based location.
Unfortunately for Traxcell, their arguments did not stand a chance against the prosecution histories of the asserted patents.
The doctrine of prosecution history disclaimer “preclud[es] patentees from recapturing through claim interpretation specific meanings disclaimed during prosecution”. Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “Prosecution disclaimer can arise from both claim amendments and arguments”. SpeedTrack, Inc. v. Amazon.com, 998 F.3d 1373, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2021). “An applicant’s argument that a prior art reference is distinguishable on a particular ground can serve as a disclaimer of claim scope even if the applicant distinguishes the reference on other grounds as well”. Id. at 1380. For there to be disclaimer, the patentee must have “clearly and unmistakably” disavowed a certain meaning of the claim.
Of the three asserted patents, the 284 patent had the most protracted prosecution, with six rounds of rejections. And it was the prosecution history of the 284 patent that provided the fodder for the district court’s claim constructions. Incidentally, the 284 patent was also the only one of the three asserted patents prosecuted by the inventor, Mark Reed, himself.
During claim construction, the district court construed the terms “first computer” and “computer” to mean a single computer that could performed the various claimed functions.
The district court first looked to the plain language of the claims. The claim language recites “a first computer” or “a computer” that performs a function, and then recites that “the first computer” or “the computer” performs several additional functions. The district court determined that the claims plainly tied the claimed functions to a single computer, and that “it would defy the concept of antecedent basis” for the claims to refer back to “the first computer” or “the computer”, if the corresponding tasks were actually performed by a different computer.
The intrinsic evidence that convinced the district court of its claim construction was, however, the prosecution history of the 284 patent.
During prosecution, in a 67-page response, Mr. Reed argued explicitly and at length, in a section titled “Single computer needed in Reed et al. [i.e., the pending application] v. additional software needed in Andersson et al. [i.e., the prior art]”, that the claimed invention requiring just one computer distinguished over the prior art system using multiple computers. The district court quoted extensively from this response as intrinsic evidence supporting its claim construction.
The Federal Circuit agreed with the district court’s claim construction, quoting still more passages from the same response as evidence that the patentee “clearly and unmistakably disclaimed the use of multiple computers”.
Next, the district court addressed the term “location”. The district court construed the term to mean a “location that is not merely a position in a grid pattern”.
Here, the district court’s claim construction relied almost exclusively on arguments that Reed made during prosecution of the 284 patent. Referring again to the same 67-page response, the district court noted that Mr. Reed explicitly argued, in a section titled “Grid pattern not required in Reed et al. v. grid pattern required in Steer et al.”, that the claimed invention distinguished over the prior art because the claimed invention operated without the limitation of a grid pattern, and that the absence of a grid pattern permitted finer tuning of the network system.
And again, the Federal Circuit agreed with the district court’s claim construction, finding that “the disclaimer here was clear and unmistakable”.
The claim constructions favored Nokia’s non-infringement arguments that its system lacked the single-computer, non-grid-pattern-based-location limitations of the asserted claims. Accordingly, the district court found, and the Federal Circuit affirmed, that Nokia’s system did not infringe the 284, 320, and 024 patents.
Traxcell made an interesting argument on appeal—specifically, the disclaimer found by the district court was too broad and a narrower disclaimer would have been enough to overcome the prior art. Traxcell seemed to be borrowing from the doctrine of prosecution history estoppel. Under that doctrine, arguments or amendments made during prosecution to obtain allowance of a patent creates prosecution history estoppel that limits the range of equivalents available under the doctrine of equivalents.
However, the Federal Circuit was unsympathetic to Traxcell’s argument, explaining that Traxcell was held “to the actual arguments made, not the arguments that could have been made”. The Federal Circuit also noted that “it frequently happens that patentees surrender more…than may have been absolutely necessary to avoid particular prior art”.
Mr. Reed’s somewhat unsophisticated prosecution of the 284 patent was in sharp contrast to the prosecution of the related 320 and 024 patents, which were handled by a patent attorney. The prosecution histories of the 320 and 024 patents said very little about the cited prior art, even less about the claimed invention. In addition, whereas Mr. Reed editorialized on various claimed features during prosecution of the 284 patent, the prosecution histories of the 320 and 024 patents rarely even paraphrased the claims.
Takeaways
- Avoid gratuitous remarks that define or characterize the claimed invention or the prior art during prosecution. Quote the claim language directly and avoid paraphrasing the claim language, as the paraphrases risk being construed later as a narrowing characterization of the claimed invention.
- Avoid claim amendments that are not necessary to distinguish over the prior art.
- The prosecution history of a patent can affect the construction of claims in other patents in the same family, even when the claim language is not identical. Be mindful about how arguments and/or amendments made in one application may be used against other related applications.
DESIGN CLAIM IS LIMITED TO AN ARTICLE OF MANUFACTURE IDENTIFIED IN THE CLAIM
Sung-Hoon Kim | November 8, 2021
In Re: Surgisil, L.L.P., Peter Raphael, Scott Harris
Decided on October 4, 2021
Moore (author), Newman, and O’Malley
Summary:
The Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB’s anticipation decision on a claim of SurgiSil’s ’550 application because a design claim should be limited to an article of manufacture identified in the claim. The Federal Circuit held that since the claim in the ’550 application identified a lip implant, the claim is limited to lip implants and does not cover other article of manufacture. The CAFC held that since the Blick reference discloses an art tool rather than a lip implant, the PTAB’s anticipation finding is not correct.
Details:
The ’550 application
SurgiSil’s ’550 application claims an ornamental design for a lip implant[1] as shown below:
The examiner rejected a claim of the ’550 application as being anticipated by Blick, which discloses an art tool called stump as shown below:
The PTAB
The PTAB affirmed the examiner’s decision and found that the differences between the claimed design in the ’550 application and Blick are minor.
The PTAB rejected SurgiSil’s argument that Blick discloses a “very different” article of manufacture than a lip implant reasoning that “it is appropriate to ignore the identification of manufacture in the claim language” and “whether a reference is analogous art is irrelevant to whether that reference anticipates.”
The Federal Circuit
The CAFC reviewed the PTAB’s legal conclusion that the article of manufacture identified in the claims is not limiting de novo. The CAFC ultimately held that the PTAB erred as a matter of law.
By citing 35 U.S.C. §171(a) (“Whoever invents any new, original and ornamental design for an article of manufacture may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.”), the CAFC held that a design claim is limited to the article of manufacture identified in the claim.
The CAFC also cited a case called Curver Luxembourg, SARL v. Home Expressions Inc., 938 F.3d 1334, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2019)[2] and the MPEP to hold that the claim at issue should be limited to the particular article of manufacture identified in the claim.
The CAFC held that since the claim identified a lip implant, the claim is limited to lip implants and does not cover other article of manufacture.
The CAFC held that since Blick discloses an art tool rather than a lip implant, the PTAB’s anticipation finding is not correct.
Therefore, the CAFC reversed the PTAB’s decision.
Takeaway:
- It would certainly be easier to obtain design patents going forward. Can Applicant obtain design patents by using a known design in the art and applying to a new article of manufacture?
- It would be difficult to invalidate design patents because prior arts from a different article of manufacture could not be used to invalidate them.
- Applicant should be careful to amend a title/claim and provide any description on title/terms in the claim in a design application because they could be used to construe an article of manufacture and to clarify the scope of a design patent claim.
- It may be difficult to enforce the design patent for a certain article of manufacture (i.e., “lip implant”) against a different article of manufacture (“art stump”).
[1] Website for SurgiSil: SurgiSil’s silicone lip implants are an alternative to “repetitive, costly, and painful filler injections,” but that they can be removed at any time.
[2] In this case, the CAFC held that a particular claim was limited to a wicker pattern applied to an article of manufacture recited in the claim (chair) and did not cover the use of the same pattern on another non-claimed article (i.e., basket).
Authentication method held patent-eligible at Alice Step Two
WHDA Blogging Team | October 14, 2021
CosmoKey Solutions GmbH & Co. v. Duo Security LLC
Decided on October 4, 2021
O’Malley, Reyna, and Stoll. Court opinion by Stoll. Concurring opinion by Reyna.
Summary
The United States District Court for the District of Delaware granted Duo’s motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c), arguing that all claims of the patent in dispute are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims are directed to the abstract idea of authentication and do not recite any patent-eligible inventive concept. On appeal, the Federal Circuit unanimously revered the district court decision, holding that the claims of the patent are patent-eligible under Alice Step Two because they recite a specific improvement to a particular computer-implemented authentication technique. Reyna concurred, arguing that he would resolve the dispute at Alice Step One, not Step Two.
Details
I. Background
(1) Patent in Dispute
CosmoKey Solutions GmbH & Co. (“CosmoKey’s”) owns U.S. Patent No. 9,246,903 (“the ’903 patent”), titled “Authentication Method” and purported to disclose an authentication method that is both low in complexity and high in security.
Claim 1 is the only independent claim of the ’903 patent and reads:
1. A method of authenticating a user to a transaction at a terminal, comprising the steps of:
transmitting a user identification from the terminal to a transaction partner via a first communication channel,
providing an authentication step in which an authentication device uses a second communication channel for checking an authentication function that is implemented in a mobile device of the user, as a criterion for deciding whether the authentication to the transaction shall be granted or denied, having the authentication device check whether a predetermined time relation exists between the transmission of the user identification and a response from the second communication channel,
ensuring that the authentication function is normally inactive and is activated by the user only preliminarily for the transaction,
ensuring that said response from the second communication channel includes information that the authentication function is active, and
thereafter ensuring that the authentication function is automatically deactivated.
(2) The District Court
CosmoKey brought a civil lawsuit against Duo Security, Inc. (“Duo”) for infringement of the ’903 patent at the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (“the district court”). Duo moved for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that the claims of the ’903 patent are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
The district court agreed with Duo, holding that the patent claims were invalid. The district court reasoned that the claims “are directed to the abstract idea of authentication—that is, the verification of identity to permit access to transactions” at Alice Step One, and that “the [’]903 patent merely teaches generic computer functionality to perform the abstract concept of authentication; and it therefore fails Alice’s step two inquiry.” In so holding, the district court determined that the patent itself admits that “the detection of an authentication function’s activity and the activation by users of an authentication function within a predetermined time relation were well-understood and routine, conventional activities previously known in the authentication technology field.”
CosmoKey appealed the district court’s judgment.
II. The Federal Circuit
The Federal Circuit (“the Court”) unanimously revered the district court decision, holding that the claims of the patent are patent-eligible under Alice step two.
Before discussing Alice Steps One and Two, the Court referred to several cases in which the Court has previously considered the eligibility of various claims generally directed to authentication and verification under § 101. However, the Court compared the claims of the ’903 patent with none of those claims held patent-eligible or patent-ineligible. See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“The Supreme Court has not established a definitive rule to determine what constitutes an “abstract idea” sufficient to satisfy the first step of the Mayo/Alice inquiry. … Rather, both this court and the Supreme Court have found it sufficient to compare claims at issue to those claims already found to be directed to an abstract idea in previous cases.”).
(1) Alice Step One
The Court stated that the critical question at Alice Step One for this case is whether the correct characterization of what the claims are directed to is either an abstract idea or a specific improvement in computer verification and authentication techniques.
Interestingly however, the Court stated that it needs not answer this question because even if the Court accepts the district court’s narrow characterization of the ’903 patent claims, the claims satisfy Alice step two.
The Court noted in footnote 3 that this very approach was followed in Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (explaining that “even if [the claim] were directed to an abstract idea under step one, the claim is eligible under step two”).
(2) Alice Step Two
The district court recognized that the specification indicates that the “difference between [the] prior art methods and the claimed invention is that the [’]903 patent’s method ‘can be carried out with mobile devices of low complexity’ so that ‘all that has to be required from the authentication device function is to detect whether or not this function is active’” and that “the only activity that is required from the user for authentication purposes is to activate the authentication function at a suitable timing for the transaction.” But the district court cited column 1, lines 15–53 of the specification as purportedly admitting that detection of activation of an authentication function’s activity and the activation by users of an authentication function within a pre-determined time relation were “well-understood and routine, conventional activities previously known in the authentication technology field” (emphasis added).
The Court criticized the district court’s reliance on column 1, lines 15–53 as misplaced. The Court stated that, while column 1, lines 30–46 describes three prior art references, none teach the recited claim steps, and read in context, the rest of the passage cited by the district court makes clear that the claimed steps were developed by the inventors, are not admitted prior art, and yield certain advantages over the described prior art (emphasis added).
Duo also argued that using a second communication channel in a timing mechanism and an authentication function that is normally inactive, activated only preliminarily, and automatically deactivated is itself an abstract idea and thus cannot contribute to an inventive concept, and far from concrete (emphasis added). The Court disagreed, stating that the claim limitations are more specific and recite an improved method for overcoming hacking by ensuring that the authentication function is normally inactive, activating only for a transaction, communicating the activation within a certain time window, and thereafter ensuring that the authentication function is automatically deactivated (emphasis added). Referring to the Court’s recognition in Ancora Techs., Inc. v. HTC Am., Inc., 908 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2018) that improving computer or network security can constitute “a non-abstract computer-functionality improvement if done by a specific technique that departs from earlier approaches to solve a specific computer problem,” the Court emphasized that, as the specification itself makes clear, the claims recite an inventive concept by requiring a specific set of ordered steps that go beyond the abstract idea identified by the district court and improve upon the prior art by providing a simple method that yields higher security (emphasis added).
II. Concurring Opinion
Judge Reyna’s concurrence challenged the Court’s approach of accepting the district court’s analysis under Alice step one and resolving the case under Alice step two. Judge Reyna argues that Alice Step two comes into play only when a claim has been found to be directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. He concluded that, employing step one, the claims at issue are directed to patent-eligible subject matter because, as the Court opinion stated, “[t]he ’903 Patent claims and specification recite a specific improvement to authentication that increases security, prevents unauthorized access by a third party, is easily implemented, and can advantageously be carried out with mobile devices of low complexity,” which is a step-one rationale.
Takeaway
· In the Alice inquiry, courts may assume that the claim in question does not pass Alice Step One without detailed analysis, and immediately move on to Alice Step Two.
· At both Alice Steps One and Two, the Court almost always inquires about improvements, i.e., the claimed advance over the prior art (“Under Alice step one, we consider “what the patent asserts to be the ‘focus of the claimed advance over the prior art.’”; “Turning then to Alice step two, we “consider the elements of each claim both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’ to determine whether the additional elements ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible ap- plication.” … In computer-implemented inventions, the computer must perform more than “well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry.””) (emphasis added). This approach may appear different from the views of the Supreme Court and the USPTO. See Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 132 S.Ct. 1289, 1304 (2012) (“We recognize that, in evaluating the significance of additional steps, the § 101 patent-eligibility inquiry and, say, the § 102 novelty inquiry might sometimes overlap. But that need not always be so.””); MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) (“[T]he improvement analysis at Step 2A [(Alice Step One)] Prong Two differs in some respects from the improvements analysis at Step 2B [(Alice Step Two)]. Specifically, the “improvements” analysis in Step 2A determines whether the claim pertains to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology without reference to what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity.”) (emphasis added).
« Previous Page — Next Page »
