![]() ![]() “Identifying, analyzing, and presenting certain data to a user is not an improvement specific to computing…. The CAFC further explained that “he claims are directed to limiting and coordinating the display of information based on a user selection.” While IBM argued that the claims make “specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities,” specifically, “an improved for displaying, filtering, and interacting with geospatial data on a map and list display” and that the patent “improves ‘the ability of users to identify and analyze relevant data in otherwise large data sets,’” the CAFC said this does not satisfy step one: Specifically, the district court reasoned that the task “could be performed by hand, using a printed map and related list of items on the map, a transparent overlay, a wet-erase marker, a blank sheet of opaque paper, and a knife or scissors.” ![]() In its analysis of the district court’s decision, the CAFC majority agreed at Alice step one that the ‘789 patent is “directed to the abstract idea of responding to a user’s selection of a portion of a displayed map by simultaneously updating the map and a co-displayed list of items on the map.” Since this can be done in the physical realm by hand using a paper map, the district court concluded that the claims merely contemplate the automation of an existing practice using a computer. The layering feature of the ’389 patent is illustrated in the image below. 9,158,789 covers a method for “coordinated geospatial, list-based and filter-based selection.” The ‘389 patent is directed to “methods of displaying layered data on a spatially oriented display (like a map), based on nonspatial display attributes (like visual characteristics-color hues, line patterns, shapes, etc.),” according to the CAFC opinion. 7,187,389 were plausibly patent eligible and should not have been found ineligible at the pleadings stage. Judge Stoll dissented in part, explaining that claims 9 and 13 of IBM’s U.S. The opinion was authored by Judge Hughes. But the district court granted Zillow’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding the claims were directed to abstract ideas and lacked any inventive concept. IBM had sued Zillow, alleging that several of the services offered on Zillow’s website and mobile applications infringed the claims. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today issued a precedential decision finding that two IBM patents directed to technology that allows users to select and view results on a map were directed to ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. ![]() “Using a computer to ‘concurrently update’ the map and the list may speed up the process, but ‘mere automation of manual processes using generic computers does not constitute a patentable improvement in computer technology.’” – Federal Circuit ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |