"The district court’s error in its step one analysis is further reflected in its mistaken reliance on Prism, a nonprecedential 2017 decision addressing different technology. Appx 6-7 (citing Prism, 696 F. App’x at 1016-17). The court used Prism to define what it saw as the “abstract idea” here, reasoning that the Asserted

Case: 18-1470 Document: 17 Page: 50 Filed: 03/26/2018

-39- Claims, “like those at issue in Prism, address an ‘abstract idea of providing restricted access to resources.’” Id. That analogy is fatally flawed".