{"id":10346,"date":"2018-12-28T11:09:49","date_gmt":"2018-12-28T17:09:49","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/?p=10346"},"modified":"2018-12-28T11:09:49","modified_gmt":"2018-12-28T17:09:49","slug":"quotes-of-the-day-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/?p=10346","title":{"rendered":"Quotes of the day"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Whether a claim is directed to statutory subject matter is a question of law. Although determination of this question may require findings of underlying facts specific to the particular subject matter and its mode of claiming . . . .<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Arrhythmia Research Technology v. Corazonix Corp.<\/em>, 958 F.2d 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1992).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is well-established that \u201cwhether the asserted claims \u2026 are invalid for failure to claim statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 101, is a question of law which we review without deference.\u201d AT & T Corp. v. Excel Commc\u2019ns, Inc.,172 F.3d 1352, 1355 (Fed.Cir.1999)<\/a>. As a question of law, lack of statutory subject matter is a \u201cground [for affirmance] within the power of the appellate court to formulate.\u201d Chenery, 318 U.S. at 88, 63 S.Ct. 454<\/a>. While there may be cases in which the legal question as to patentable subject matter may turn on subsidiary factual issues, Comiskey has not identified any relevant fact issues that must be resolved in order to address the patentability of the subject matter of Comiskey\u2019s application. Moreover, since we would review a Board decision on the issue of patentability without deference, see AT & T, 172 F.3d at 1355,<\/a> the legal issue concerning patentability is not \u201ca determination of policy or judgment which the agency alone is authorized to make.\u201d Chenery, 318 U.S. at 88, 63 S.Ct. 454<\/a>.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

In re Comiskey<\/em>, 554 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 2009)(Judge Dyk writing for the court).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2. Claims Directed To<\/em><\/p>

Claim 1 of the \u2019576 patent is focused on a specific asserted improvement in computer animation, i.e., the automatic use of rules of a particular type. We disagree with Defendants\u2019 arguments that the claims simply use a computer as a tool to automate conventional activity. While the rules are embodied in computer software that is processed by general-purpose computers, Defendants provided no evidence<\/strong> that the process previously used by animators is the same as the process required by the claims.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

McRO v. Bandai<\/em>, 837 F.3d 1299, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016)(emphasis added).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The section 101 analysis applied by the PTAB was not legally erroneous under Mayo and Alice. And its underlying fact findings and credibility determinations are supported by substantial evidence in the record. See Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., Nos. 14-1542, -1543, 789 F.3d 1292, 1297, 2015 WL 3747257, at *2 (Fed.Cir. June 16, 2015)<\/a>(noting that as a general matter, we review the PTAB\u2019s findings of fact for substantial supporting evidence in the record).<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc. (\u201cVersata II\u201d), 793 F.3d 1306, 1336 (2015).<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In other news, Judge Mayer penned a concurring opinion today in IN RE: MARCO GULDENAAR HOLDING B.V.<\/em> arguing that that the court’s precedent has established that patent eligibility is a pure <\/strong>question of law. The best argument the concurring opinion appears to muster is the open-ended statement from OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc<\/em>., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2015) that: \u201cPatent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 101 is an issue of law reviewed de novo.\u201d How one arrives at “pure<\/strong> question of law” from “an issue of law” is unclear. Neither Arrhythmia<\/em> nor Comiskey<\/em> were mentioned in the concurring opinion. Judges Chen and Bryson did not join Judge Mayer’s concurring opinion.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Whether a claim is directed to statutory subject matter is a question of law. Although determination of this question may require findings of underlying facts specific to the particular subject matter and its mode of claiming . . . . Arrhythmia Research Technology v. Corazonix Corp., 958 F.2d 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1992). It is well-established that […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10346"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=10346"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10346\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":10347,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10346\/revisions\/10347"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=10346"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=10346"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=10346"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}