{"id":1713,"date":"2017-08-15T12:43:05","date_gmt":"2017-08-15T16:43:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=1713"},"modified":"2017-08-17T09:09:55","modified_gmt":"2017-08-17T13:09:55","slug":"clarity-in-%c2%a7101-half-of-the-judges-considering-the-question-find-plaintiffs-computer-memory-system-to-be-patentable-subject-matter","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=1713","title":{"rendered":"Clarity in \u00a7101: Half of the Judges Considering the Question Find Plaintiff’s Computer Memory System to be Patentable Subject Matter"},"content":{"rendered":"

In Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp.<\/a>, [2016-2254](August 15, 2017), the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s determination that\u00a0Visual
\nMemory\u2019s U.S. Patent No. 5,953,740, on a memory system with programmable\u00a0operational characteristics that can be tailored for use
\nwith multiple different processors, was drawn to patent ineligible subject matter.<\/p>\n

Claim 1 states:<\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a01. A computer memory system connectable to\u00a0a processor and having one or more programmable\u00a0operational characteristics, said characteristics
\nbeing defined through configuration by said\u00a0computer based on the type of said processor,\u00a0wherein said system is connectable to said processor
\nby a bus, said system comprising:
\na main memory connected to said bus; and
\na cache connected to said bus;
\nwherein a programmable operational characteristic\u00a0of said system determines a type of data\u00a0stored by said cache.<\/p>\n

The Federal Circuit said that the framework for distinguishing patents that claim\u00a0laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas\u00a0from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those\u00a0concepts comprises two steps. \u00a0The first step\u00a0requires courts to determine whether the claims at issue\u00a0are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts. \u00a0If they are, the court must then analyze whether the\u00a0claim elements, either individually or as an ordered\u00a0combination, contain an \u201cinventive concept\u201d that transforms the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible\u00a0application.<\/p>\n

At step one, the Federal Circuit\u00a0asked whether the claims are directed to an\u00a0improvement to computer functionality versus being\u00a0directed to an abstract idea. \u00a0Analogizing to Enfish<\/em> (self-referential table for a computer
\ndatabase) and Thales<\/em> (unique configuration of inertial sensors), the Federal Circuit \u00a0found that the claims were\u00a0directed to an improved computer memory system, not\u00a0to the abstract idea of categorical data storage.<\/p>\n

The Federal Circuit noted the many benefits explained in the specification; the elimination of the one-size-fits-all approach of the prior art, which resulted in trade-offs; interoperability with multiple different processors; and improved performance over prior art systems with even larger caches. \u00a0The Federal Circuit said that the claims were directed\u00a0a technological improvement: an enhanced computer\u00a0memory system. \u00a0The Federal Circuit said this was not a case\u00a0where the claims merely\u00a0recite the \u201cuse of an abstract mathematical formula on\u00a0any general purpose computer,\u201d \u201ca purely conventional\u00a0\u00a0computer implementation of a mathematical formula,\u201d or\u00a0\u201cgeneralized steps to be performed on a computer using\u00a0conventional computer activity.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Federal Circuit went on to distinguish\u00a0Content Extraction<\/em> which merely employed a computer, and\u00a0TLI Communications<\/em> which used conventional hardware and were\u00a0\u201cnot directed to a specific improvement to computer
\nfunctionality.\u201d<\/p>\n

The opinion addressed the dissent’s contention that the claimed programmable\u00a0operational characteristic is \u201cnothing more
\nthan a black box\u201d by pointing out there was a microfiche appendix of computer code, that enablement was a \u00a7112 issue not a \u00a7101 issue, and finally by pointing out that the innovative effort was not in the programminer required, but in the creation of the memory system.<\/p>\n

The Federal Circuit conceded that the concept of categorical data storage underlies\u00a0the patent\u2019s claims, but said that this is not\u00a0enough to doom a claim under \u00a7 101 because the claims\u00a0are not so limited, and \u201call inventions at some level embody,\u00a0use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature,
\nnatural phenomena, or abstract ideas.\u201d \u00a0The Federal Circuit ended the inquiry at Step 1 and remanded the case.<\/p>\n

In the end the finding of patentable subject matter was 2 judges for and 2 judges (the dissent and the district court judge) against. \u00a0If only all patentability determinations were as certain as 50-50.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., [2016-2254](August 15, 2017), the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s determination that\u00a0Visual Memory\u2019s U.S. Patent No. 5,953,740, on a memory system with programmable\u00a0operational characteristics that can be tailored for use with multiple different … 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-1713","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\/1713","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=1713"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1713\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1714,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1713\/revisions\/1714"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1713"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1713"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1713"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}