REVERSED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2168 Ex Parte Shetty et al 12370655 - (D) SHIANG 102/103 SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS MACKES, KRIS E
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3631 Ex Parte Wang 11032550 - (D) HOFFMANN 102/103 QUINTERO LAW OFFICE, PC SAFAVI, MICHAEL
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3715 Ex Parte Hyltander et al 10529496 - (D) JESCHKE 102/103 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. CARLOS, ALVIN LEABRES
3734 Ex Parte Barker et al 11952883 - (D) FREDMAN 102/103 Inskeep Intellectual Property Group, Inc. EREZO, DARWIN P
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3777 Ex Parte Weiser et al 11968671 - (D) FREDMAN 103 103 41.50 103 Tucker Ellis LLP Brainlab AG BRUTUS, JOEL F
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2158 Ex Parte Lyseggen 11750704 - (D) PINKERTON 103 NOVAK DRUCE AND QUIGG LLP BETIT, JACOB F
2158 Ex Parte Radenkovic et al 12348383 - (D) SILVERMAN 103 DELIZIO LAW, PLLC IBM AUSTIN IPLAW (DL) SMITH, BRANNON W
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2479 Ex Parte Couturier 10505227 - (D) HORVATH 103 Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC (ALU) CHRISS, ANDREW W
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2887 Ex Parte Cowcher 12646193 - (D) ABRAHAM 103 EIP US LLP STANFORD, CHRISTOPHER J
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3623 Ex Parte Claus et al 11495235 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 CANTOR FITZGERALD, L.P. MARCUS, LELAND R
3694 Ex Parte Neece et al 11846000 - (D) MEDLOCK 102/103 MOORE & VAN ALLEN PLLC RANKINS, WILLIAM E
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Kuester et al 12033611 - (D) GOODSON 101 103 Kutak Rock LLP BALDORI, JOSEPH B
Having determined that claim 12 is directed to a patent-ineligible concept, we must secondly consider the elements of claim 12 individually and as an ordered combination to determine whether the additional elements of the claim transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application. The Examiner’s analysis under the machine-or-transformation test is germane to this second step of the Alice framework. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 14, 2014) (holding that although the machine-or-transformation test is not the sole test governing § 101 analyses, it “can provide a ‘useful clue’ in the second step of the Alice framework”).
The Examiner notes that claim 12 recites cards and a base, but determines that because the cards and base
do not actually perform the step of arranging a plurality of cards, or of playing the game, and since the method could be performed with common game playing items (e.g. a deck of cards and a table) this is not considered the use of a particular machine to perform any step of the claimed method, nor is it a meaningful tie to a machine or apparatus.
Ans. 10. Appellants argue that the claimed method is tied to a particular apparatus insofar as it recites a base having compartments sized and shaped to receive and retain cards. See App. Br. 12–13. Appellants assert that the base cannot be any ordinary table, as the Examiner contends, because playing a game on a table would not satisfy these express limitations in claim 12. See id. at 13; see also Reply Br. 5 (“The method claims literally cannot occur without the physical articles described in the claims.”).
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner’s analysis, in effect, inappropriately reads limitations out of claim 12.
Ultramercial v. Hulu, 657 F.3d 1323, 100 USPQ2d 1140 (Fed. Cir. 2011) 2106
