{"id":982,"date":"2016-06-27T19:10:40","date_gmt":"2016-06-27T23:10:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=982"},"modified":"2016-06-30T12:36:06","modified_gmt":"2016-06-30T16:36:06","slug":"inventive-concept-can-be-found-in-non-conventional-and-non-generic-arrangement-of-known-conventional-pieces","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=982","title":{"rendered":"Inventive Concept Can be Found in Non-conventional and Non-generic Arrangement of Known, Conventional Pieces"},"content":{"rendered":"

In Bascom Global Internet Services, Inc., v. AT&T Mobility LLC<\/em>, [2015-1763] (June 27, 2016), the Federal Circuit reversed the dismissal of of the Complaint for failure\u00a0to state a claim upon\u00a0which relief can be granted on the grounds that the claims of U.S.\u00a0Patent No. 5,987,606 are invalid as a matter of law under\u00a035 U.S.C. \u00a7 101.<\/p>\n

AT&T argued that the claims were directed to the abstract\u00a0idea of \u201cfiltering Internet content,\u201d\u00a0which is a well-known \u201cmethod of organizing human\u00a0activity\u201d like the intermediated settlement concept that\u00a0was held to be an abstract idea in Alice<\/em>. \u00a0BASCOM responded by arguing that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea because\u00a0they address a problem arising in the realm of computer\u00a0networks, and provide a solution entirely rooted in computer\u00a0technology, similar to the claims at issue in DDR<\/em>
\nHoldings.<\/em><\/p>\n

The Federal Circuit agreed\u00a0with the district court that\u00a0filtering content is an abstract idea because it is a longstanding,\u00a0well-known method of organizing human behavior,\u00a0similar to concepts previously found to be abstract. \u00a0The Federal Circuit said that the\u00a0claims and their specific limitations do not\u00a0readily lend themselves to a finding that they
\nare directed to a nonabstract idea, so it defered consideration of the specific claim limitations\u2019 narrowing\u00a0effect for step two of the Alice analysis.<\/p>\n

The Federal Circuit agreed with the district court that the limitations of\u00a0the claims, taken individually<\/em>, recite generic computer, but\u00a0disagreed with the district court\u2019s analysis
\nof the ordered combination of limitations. \u00a0The Federal Circuit said that\u00a0The inventive concept inquiry requires more\u00a0than recognizing that each claim element, by itself, was
\nknown in the art. The Federal Circuit said that an inventive concept\u00a0can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic\u00a0arrangement of known, conventional pieces.<\/p>\n

The Federal Circuit said that on this limited record before it,\u00a0the specific method of filtering Internet content cannot be\u00a0said, as a matter of law, to have been conventional or\u00a0generic. \u00a0The Federal Circuit found that the claims do not merely recite the abstract idea of\u00a0filtering content along with the requirement to perform it\u00a0on the Internet, or to perform it on a set of generic computer\u00a0components.<\/p>\n

The Federal Circuit concluded\u00a0that\u00a0the claims were directed to the\u00a0abstract idea of filtering content, but that BASCOM had \u00a0adequately\u00a0alleged that the claims pass step two of Alice\u2019s two-part\u00a0framework.<\/p>\n

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

In Bascom Global Internet Services, Inc., v. AT&T Mobility LLC, [2015-1763] (June 27, 2016), the Federal Circuit reversed the dismissal of of the Complaint for failure\u00a0to state a claim upon\u00a0which relief can be granted on the grounds that the claims … 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-982","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\/982","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=982"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/982\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":983,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/982\/revisions\/983"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=982"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=982"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=982"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}