{"id":1093,"date":"2016-08-01T12:21:31","date_gmt":"2016-08-01T16:21:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=1093"},"modified":"2016-08-02T10:31:30","modified_gmt":"2016-08-02T14:31:30","slug":"information-is-intangible-so-methods-of-manipulating-it-are-abstract","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=1093","title":{"rendered":"Information is Intangible, so Methods of Manipulating it are Abstract"},"content":{"rendered":"

In\u00a0Electric Power Group, LLC,\u00a0v.\u00a0Alstom S.A.,\u00a0<\/em>[2015-1778] (August 1, 2016), the Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment of invalidity of\u00a0U.S. Patent Nos. 7,233,843, 8,060,259, and 8,401,710, on systems and methods for performing real-time\u00a0performance monitoring of an electric power grid by\u00a0collecting data from multiple data sources, analyzing the\u00a0data, and displaying the results.<\/p>\n

The Federal Circuit noted that although lengthy and numerous, the claims\u00a0do not go beyond requiring the collection, analysis, and\u00a0display of available information in a particular field,\u00a0stating those functions in general terms, without limiting\u00a0them to technical means for performing the functions that\u00a0are arguably an advance over conventional computer and\u00a0network technology. The claims, defining a desirable\u00a0information-based result and not limited to inventive\u00a0means of achieving the result, fail under \u00a7101.<\/p>\n

The Federal Circuit began with the familiar two-step analysis, noting that a claim falls outside \u00a7 101 where (1) it is \u201cdirected\u00a0to\u201d a patent-ineligible concept, i.e., a law of nature,\u00a0natural phenomenon, or abstract idea, and (2), if so, the\u00a0particular elements of the claim, considered \u201cboth individually\u00a0and \u2018as an ordered combination,\u2019\u201d do not add
\nenough to \u201c\u2018transform the nature of the claim\u2019 into a\u00a0patent-eligible application.\u201d \u00a0The Federal Circuit said that the Supreme Court\u2019s formulation makes clear that\u00a0the first-stage filter is a meaningful one, sometimes\u00a0ending the \u00a7 101 inquiry. \u00a0The Federal Circuit explained that\u00a0the first-stage inquiry looks at the\u00a0\u201cfocus\u201d of the claims, their \u201c\u2018character as a whole,\u2019\u201d and\u00a0the second-stage inquiry (where reached) as looking more
\nprecisely at what the claim elements add\u2014specifically,\u00a0whether, in the Supreme Court\u2019s terms, they identify an\u00a0\u201c\u2018inventive concept\u2019\u201d in the application of the ineligible\u00a0matter to which (by assumption at stage two) the claim is\u00a0directed.<\/p>\n

The Federal Circuit reasoned that information as such is an intangible, and thus collecting\u00a0information, including when limited to particular content\u00a0(which does not change its character as information), as\u00a0within the realm of abstract ideas. \u00a0In a
\nsimilar vein, the Federal Circuit said that it has treated analyzing information by
\nsteps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical\u00a0algorithms, without more, as essentially mental\u00a0processes within the abstract-idea category. \u00a0Finally, the Federal Circuit added that\u00a0it has\u00a0recognized that\u00a0merely presenting the results of abstract processes of\u00a0collecting and analyzing information, without more (such\u00a0as identifying a particular tool for presentation), is abstract\u00a0as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis.<\/p>\n

The Federal Circuit concluded that the claims are clearly focus on the combination
\nof abstract-idea processes. \u00a0The Federal Circuit distinguished the Enfish, which involved computer-functionality improvements, with the current case which uses\u00a0existing computers as tools in aid of\u00a0processes focused on \u201cabstract ideas.\u201d<\/p>\n

Moving on to Step 2, the Federal Circuit noted that\u00a0limiting the claims to the particular technological environment was not sufficient. \u00a0The Federal Circuit found nothing\u00a0nothing significant to differentiate the claimed\u00a0process from ordinary mental processes. \u00a0The Federal Circuit said that the claims do not require a new\u00a0source or type of information, or new techniques for\u00a0analyzing it. \u00a0As a result, they do not require\u00a0an arguably inventive set of components or methods, such\u00a0as measurement devices or techniques, that would generate\u00a0new data. They do not invoke any assertedly inventive\u00a0programming. Merely requiring the selection and\u00a0manipulation of information\u2014to provide a \u201chumanly
\ncomprehensible\u201d amount of information useful for users,\u00a0does not transform the otherwise-abstract processes\u00a0of information collection and analysis. \u00a0The Federal Circuit also found that there was nothing in how the steps were accomplishes, because the claims did require any nonconventional computer, network, or\u00a0display components, or even a \u201cnon-conventional and nongeneric arrangement of known, conventional pieces,\u201d but\u00a0merely call for performance of the claimed information\u00a0collection, analysis, and display functions \u201con a set of\u00a0generic computer components\u201d and display devices.<\/p>\n

The Federal Circuit concluded that\u00a0nothing in the claims, understood in light of the specification,\u00a0requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional\u00a0computer, network, and display technology for\u00a0gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In\u00a0Electric Power Group, LLC,\u00a0v.\u00a0Alstom S.A.,\u00a0[2015-1778] (August 1, 2016), the Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment of invalidity of\u00a0U.S. Patent Nos. 7,233,843, 8,060,259, and 8,401,710, on systems and methods for performing real-time\u00a0performance monitoring of an electric power grid by\u00a0collecting data from multiple … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[15],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1093","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-15"],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1093","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1093"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1093\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1095,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1093\/revisions\/1095"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1093"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1093"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1093"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}