The claimed use of a computer to automate novel as opposed to conventional activity is not directed to an abstract idea. Here, for example, claims focusing on the automatic use of rules of a particular type for creating 3-D animation were found to be non-abstract because the process previously used by animators was not the same as the process required by the claims. “It is the incorporation of the claimed rules, not the use of the computer, that improved the existing technological process.” This would be a good case to consult and cite in response to a subject matter eligibility rejection where the claims are otherwise acknowledged to be new and nonobvious.
Background / Facts: The patents being asserted here are directed to automating part of a preexisting 3-D animation method. The claims recite animating lip synchronization and facial expressions using rules that define an “output morph weight set stream as a function of phoneme sequence and time of said phoneme sequence.”
Issue(s): Whether the ordered combination of claimed steps is directed to an abstract idea and therefore patent-ineligible subject matter under § 101.
Holding(s): No. “Claim 1 of the [] patent is focused on a specific asserted improvement in computer animation, i.e., the automatic use of rules of a particular type. We disagree with Defendants’ arguments that the claims simply use a computer as a tool to automate conventional activity. While the rules are embodied in computer software that is processed by general-purpose computers, Defendants provided no evidence that the process previously used by animators is the same as the process required by the claims. … It is the incorporation of the claimed rules, not the use of the computer, that improved the existing technological process by allowing the automation of further tasks. This is unlike Flook, Bilski, and Alice, where the claimed computer-automated process and the prior method were carried out in the same way.”