SHOCK & AWE baby!! It's always fun to watch the be
Post# of 82687
(Total Views: 354)
Posted On: 06/06/2018 3:25:56 PM
SHOCK & AWE baby!! It's always fun to watch the best at work. Quote:
The Asserted Claims Are Patent-Eligible Because They Claim A
Specific, Improved Technological Process Solving The Problems Of
Prior Art Systems
[bA. Alice Step One: The Claims Are Directed to a Specific, Improved Technological Process, Not an Abstract Idea
SecureAuth relies on a false analogy between the Asserted Claims and a fictional “preschool security system.” But that analogy is directed to a fundamentally different problem, and a genuinely analogous system would be nonsensical in the real world. SecureAuth’s use of hindsight to concoct a fictional and unworkable pre-computer “analogy” to map onto the claims’ limitations cannot substitute for careful review of the claims.
SecureAuth’s Alice step two arguments also fail.
Precedent prohibits defining the claims at a high level of abstraction for step one, but then at step two treating the “idea” more narrowly, as though it already subsumed the invention’s novel features. But that is precisely what the district court did and what SecureAuth invites this Court to do. Whether at step one or step two, the analysis must acknowledge the innovative manner in which the claims arrange otherwise generic components to create a novel system that overcomes the problems in existing systems. Moreover, to the extent necessary, the Court should address claim construction. Relatedly, a court cannot, as SecureAuth urges, hold unpatentable the entirety of the Asserted Claims on the basis of a single claim, claim 53, that, as mischaracterized by SecureAuth, omits critical inventive features found in other asserted claims.
Technological Process, Not an Abstract Idea[/b]
The Asserted Patents’ improvements to the structure and functionality of
computer security networks “enable a computer security system to do things it
could not do before.” Indeed, the specification’s disparagement of prior art systems and explanation of how the claims employ a new
network structure “to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks,"
DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, LP, 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014),
is confirmed by the multiple failed attempts to invalidate the claims
at the PTO over prior art directed to traditional processes.
SecureAuth cannot negate these improvements by ignoring them.
The Asserted Claims Are Patent-Eligible Because They Claim A
Specific, Improved Technological Process Solving The Problems Of
Prior Art Systems
[bA. Alice Step One: The Claims Are Directed to a Specific, Improved Technological Process, Not an Abstract Idea
SecureAuth relies on a false analogy between the Asserted Claims and a fictional “preschool security system.” But that analogy is directed to a fundamentally different problem, and a genuinely analogous system would be nonsensical in the real world. SecureAuth’s use of hindsight to concoct a fictional and unworkable pre-computer “analogy” to map onto the claims’ limitations cannot substitute for careful review of the claims.
SecureAuth’s Alice step two arguments also fail.
Precedent prohibits defining the claims at a high level of abstraction for step one, but then at step two treating the “idea” more narrowly, as though it already subsumed the invention’s novel features. But that is precisely what the district court did and what SecureAuth invites this Court to do. Whether at step one or step two, the analysis must acknowledge the innovative manner in which the claims arrange otherwise generic components to create a novel system that overcomes the problems in existing systems. Moreover, to the extent necessary, the Court should address claim construction. Relatedly, a court cannot, as SecureAuth urges, hold unpatentable the entirety of the Asserted Claims on the basis of a single claim, claim 53, that, as mischaracterized by SecureAuth, omits critical inventive features found in other asserted claims.
Technological Process, Not an Abstract Idea[/b]
The Asserted Patents’ improvements to the structure and functionality of
computer security networks “enable a computer security system to do things it
could not do before.” Indeed, the specification’s disparagement of prior art systems and explanation of how the claims employ a new
network structure “to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks,"
DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, LP, 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014),
is confirmed by the multiple failed attempts to invalidate the claims
at the PTO over prior art directed to traditional processes.
SecureAuth cannot negate these improvements by ignoring them.
(9)
(0)