{"id":2133,"date":"2018-07-20T23:25:41","date_gmt":"2018-07-21T03:25:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=2133"},"modified":"2018-07-29T11:09:20","modified_gmt":"2018-07-29T15:09:20","slug":"displaying-data-is-an-even-more-abstract-idea-than-patent-eligibility","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=2133","title":{"rendered":"Displaying Data is an Even More Abstract Idea Than Patent Eligibility"},"content":{"rendered":"

In Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.<\/a>, [2016-2502, 2016-2505, 2016-2506, 2016-2507] (July 20, 2018), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s determination that claims 15-18 were directed to an abstract\u00a0idea: the presentation of two sets of information, in a nonoverlapping\u00a0way, on a display screen.<\/p>\n

The Federal CIrcuit said that considered as a whole, the claims fail under \u00a7 101\u2019s\u00a0abstract idea exception because they lack any arguable
\ntechnical advance over conventional computer and network\u00a0technology for performing the recited functions of\u00a0acquiring and displaying information.\u00a0 The Federal Circuit pointed out that\u00a0the specification describes the claimed instructions\u00a0as routine and conventional.<\/p>\n

In this case, Interval Licensing contends that the\u00a0claimed \u201cattention manager\u201d provides a technological improvement to a computer system. The Federal Circuit disagreed, noting that the\u00a0focus of the claims here is directed to \u201cproviding information\u00a0to a person without interfering with the person\u2019s\u00a0primary activity,\u201d i.e., the result-centric construction of\u00a0the claimed \u201cattention manager.\u201d\u00a0 The Federal Circuit said that standing alone, the act of providing\u00a0someone an additional set of information without disrupting\u00a0the ongoing provision of an initial set of information is
\nan abstract idea, noting the use of a breaking news\u00a0ticker across the bottom of the screen.\u00a0 The Federal Circuit said that it has held that\u00a0information is intangible, and that collecting, analyzing, and
\ndisplaying that information, without more, is likewise an abstract\u00a0idea.\u00a0 The Federal Circuit said that recitation, as in this case, of the collection, organization,\u00a0and display of two sets of information on a generic
\ndisplay device is abstract absent a \u201cspecific improvement to the way computers or other technologies operate, remained abstract.<\/p>\n

The Federal Circuit also rejected the argument that the claims are not abstract in view of the claimed display instructions, pointing out that the\u00a0the claimed instructions do not identify how the function is performed.\u00a0 The Federal Circuit said that\u00a0acquiring and organizing information,\u00a0as broadly recited by some of the instructions
\nlimitations, is an abstract idea, not an improvement in\u00a0how computers and networks carry out their basic functions.<\/p>\n

The Federal Circuit also rejected the argument that acquisition of specific information desired by the user represented an inventive concept, noting that\u00a0offering a user the ability to\u00a0select information to be displayed is one of the \u201cmost basic\u00a0functions of a computer.\u201d<\/p>\n

Having have considered all of Interval Licensing\u2019s\u00a0arguments and finding them unpersuasive, the Federal Circuit affirmed the determination that 15\u201318 of the \u2019652 patent were directed to patent ineligible\u00a0subject matter.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., [2016-2502, 2016-2505, 2016-2506, 2016-2507] (July 20, 2018), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s determination that claims 15-18 were directed to an abstract\u00a0idea: the presentation of two sets of information, in a nonoverlapping\u00a0way, … 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-2133","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\/2133","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=2133"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2133\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2135,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2133\/revisions\/2135"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2133"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2133"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2133"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}