The end of the word is here: In re Alsabah

The oral argument of the day is In re Alsabah.  I hope the appellant requested rehearing in this rule 36 judgment.  The outcome seems inconsistent with the Federal Circuit’s statement in In re Smith:

That is not to say that all inventions in the gaming arts would be foreclosed from patent protection under § 101. We could envisage, for example, claims directed to conducting a game using a new or original deck of cards potentially surviving step two of Alice. The Government acknowledged as much during oral argument. See Oral Argument at 14:59-15:31, available at

In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 819 (Fed. Cir. 2016)(cited excerpt of oral argument available [here]).

From what I could discern from the oral argument, it is hard to believe that the claim as a whole recites routine, conventional, and well-understood subject matter, under Step 2 of Alice or Step 2B of the PTO guidelines.

The oral argument is available [here].

The Rule 36 judgment is available [here].

Comments are closed.