Merely facilitating a fundamental economic practice using generic technology is not sufficient to render the claims patent eligible. Here, for example, using a generic computer to simultaneously display a plurality of positive credit decisions was found to be insufficient to transform the abstract idea of coordinating loans into a patent-eligible application of that idea. “[C]laim 1 is patent ineligible because it does nothing more than facilitate the claimed loan-application process using generic technology.” This would be a good case to consult before responding to a subject matter eligibility rejection based on fundamental economic practices.
Background / Facts: The patents being asserted here relate to a process for coordinating loans on a loan processing computer over the Internet. Among other steps, the claims recite “simultaneously displaying [a] plurality of positive credit decisions to [an] Internet user on the web site.”
Issue(s): Whether the particular limitation relating to “simultaneous competition” amounts to an inventive concept sufficient to render the claims patent eligible.
Holding(s): No. “This court and the Supreme Court have addressed claims with similar limitations and have found that they lack an inventive concept. … [U]sing a generic computer to display a ‘plurality of positive credit decisions,’ as recited in claim 1 of the [] patent, is not meaningfully different from using a generic computer to display competing loan packages or to issue instructions. Consequently, we think that … claim 1 is patent ineligible because it does nothing more than facilitate the claimed loan-application process using generic technology.”