{"id":1824,"date":"2017-10-16T13:32:52","date_gmt":"2017-10-16T17:32:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=1824"},"modified":"2017-11-25T10:37:37","modified_gmt":"2017-11-25T15:37:37","slug":"return-to-sender-secure-mail-patents-claim-abstract-idea","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=1824","title":{"rendered":"Return to Sender: Secure Mail Patents Claim Abstract Idea"},"content":{"rendered":"

In Secured\u00a0 Mail Solutions LLC v. Universal Wilde, Inc.<\/a>, [2016-1728](October 16, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the grant of a motion to dismiss on the grounds that U.S. Patent Nos. 7,814,032,\u00a07,818,268, and 8,073,787 (the \u201cIntelligent Mail Barcode\u201d\u00a0patents), U.S. Patent Nos. 8,260,629 and 8,429,093 (the \u201cQR Code\u201d patents), and U.S. Patent Nos. 8,910,860\u00a0and 9,105,002 (the \u201cPersonalized URL\u201d patents) are directed to subject\u00a0matter ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 101.<\/p>\n

The Intelligent Mail Barcode patents recite a method\u00a0for verifying the authenticity of the mail object. The\u00a0identifier or barcode is a single set of encoded data that is\u00a0generated by concatenating a sender-assigned unique\u00a0identifier with sender data, recipient data, and shipping
\nmethod data.\u00a0 The barcode is\u00a0affixed to the outside of the mail object and an authenticating\u00a0portion of the barcode is stored in a database. The
\nrecipient of the mail object can access the database and\u00a0use that authenticating portion to verify that a mail\u00a0object is authentic.<\/p>\n

The\u00a0QR Code patents, require that the identifier is\u00a0a QR code (two-dimensional barcode) which a user can\u00a0scan to look up additional electronic information related\u00a0to the mail object. Specifically, the barcode includes data\u00a0that allows the recipient of the mail object to request data
\ndirectly from the sender and allows the sender to provide\u00a0personalized data directly to the recipient, without the\u00a0involvement of the mail carrier.<\/p>\n

The Personalized URL patents are similar to\u00a0the QR Code patents, except the identifier is a\u00a0personalized network address, or URL. For example, the
\nuser can type the URL into her web browser and be\u00a0directed straight to a specific account, or to other personalized\u00a0information.<\/p>\n

The Federal Circuit rejected Secured Mail’s argument that the district court described the invents at too high a level of abstraction at Step 1 of the Alice inquiry.\u00a0 The Federal Circuit noted that\u00a0despite the district court\u2019s statement\u00a0that \u201ca reasonably high level of generality\u201d should\u00a0be used, the district court\u2019s analysis correctly found that\u00a0Secured Mail\u2019s claims are directed to an abstract idea.<\/p>\n

The Federal Circuit distinguished Enfish, noting that Secured Mail\u2019s
\npatents are not directed to an improvement in computer\u00a0functionality — the were not directed to\u00a0a new barcode format, an improved method of generating\u00a0or scanning barcodes, or similar improvements in computer
\nfunctionality.<\/p>\n

The Federal Circuit rejected Secured Mail’s argument that\u00a0S the claims are specifically directed to a sender-generated unique identifier, which\u00a0 improved on the existing process both by reliably identifying\u00a0the sender of the mail object and by permitting the\u00a0sender to create a bi-directional communication channel\u00a0between the sender and recipient of the mail object. The Federal Circuit found that the\u00a0fact that an identifier can be used to make a process more\u00a0efficient, however, does not necessarily render an abstract\u00a0idea less abstract.<\/p>\n

The Federal Circuit noted that the claims of the Intelligent Mail Barcode patents are\u00a0not directed to specific details of the barcode or the\u00a0equipment for generating and processing it. The claims\u00a0generically provide for the encoding of various data onto a\u00a0mail object but do not set out how this is to be performed.\u00a0 The Federal Circuit noted that in contrast to McRO <\/em>and Thales<\/em>,\u00a0no special rules\u00a0or details of the computers, databases, printers, or scanners\u00a0are recited.\u00a0 The Federal Circuit noted that\u00a0there is no description of how the unique identifier is\u00a0generated or how a unique identifier is different from a\u00a0personal name, or return address. Rather, the claim\u00a0language cited by Secured Mail merely recites that the\u00a0unique identifier is generated by the sender.<\/p>\n

The\u00a0QR Code patents fared no better. The Federal Circuit noted taht their claims were not limited to any particular\u00a0technology of generating, printing, or scanning a barcode,\u00a0of sending a mail object, or of sending the recipient specific\u00a0information over a network. Rather, the Federal Circuit found that each step of\u00a0the process is directed to the abstract process of communicating\u00a0information about a mail object using a personalized
\nmarking.<\/p>\n

Lastly, the Federal Circuit found that the Personalized URL patents are directed to the\u00a0same abstract idea as the QR Code patents.<\/p>\n

The Federal Circuit concluded:<\/p>\n

The claims of the three sets of patents are not limited\u00a0by rules or steps that establish how the focus of the\u00a0methods is achieved. Instead, the claims embrace the\u00a0abstract idea of using a marking affixed to the outside of a\u00a0mail object to communicate information about the mail\u00a0 object, i.e., the sender, recipient, and contents of the mail\u00a0object. Because the claims are directed to an abstract\u00a0idea, we turn to the second step of the Alice inquiry.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

At step 2 of Alice, the Federal Circuit rejected Secured Mail’s argument that the district court erred by failing to search for an inventive concept, and instead only asking whether the underlying technology were conventional.\u00a0 The Federal Circuit said that the\u00a0claims in Secured Mail\u2019s
\npatents are non-specific and lack technical detail. Rather\u00a0than citing a specific way to solve a specific problem as in\u00a0DDR, the asserted claims cite well known and conventional\u00a0ways to allow generic communication between a\u00a0sender and recipient using generic computer technology.\u00a0 The Federal Circuit pointed out that the patents themselves admit that the technologies were well known, describing them as “generally known to those skilled in the art.”<\/p>\n

The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s invalidation of all seven patents.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In Secured\u00a0 Mail Solutions LLC v. Universal Wilde, Inc., [2016-1728](October 16, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the grant of a motion to dismiss on the grounds that U.S. Patent Nos. 7,814,032,\u00a07,818,268, and 8,073,787 (the \u201cIntelligent Mail Barcode\u201d\u00a0patents), U.S. Patent Nos. … 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-1824","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\/1824","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=1824"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1824\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1825,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1824\/revisions\/1825"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1824"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1824"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1824"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}