Using a conventional machine in a conventional way to effectuate an otherwise abstract idea is not sufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible concept under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Here, for example, using scissors to create a hair style selected according to a novel mental process was found to be insignificant post-solution activity. “Such a limitation is not the type of additional feature Alice envisioned as imparting patent eligibility.” This would be a good case to consult before asserting patent eligibility on the basis of the machine-or-transformation test.
Background / Facts: The application on appeal here from rejection at the PTO is directed to methods of cutting hair. The specification indicates that an object of the invention is to produce “consistent and reproducible hair styling designs” while “balancing head shape overall.” The claims recite steps (a)-(d) for defining a head shape and choosing a hair style, and step (e) for using scissors to effect the chosen hair style.
Issue(s): Whether the use of scissors in step (e) is sufficient to transform the abstract idea of hair-style selection into a patent-eligible concept under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Holding(s): No. “While it is true that a hair cut would not result without practicing the final step of cutting hair, step (e) merely instructs one to apply the abstract idea discussed above with scissors. Such a limitation is not the type of additional feature Alice envisioned as imparting patent eligibility. [] We hold that step (e), using scissors to cut hair, is insignificant post-solution activity. Steps (a)–(d) teach the stylist how to choose the hair style, step (e) amounts to ‘apply it.’”