More than generic computerization is required to make subject-matter-eligible a claim “in which every step is a familiar part of the conscious process that [artisans] can and do perform in their heads.” Instead, the court identified two broad classes of eligible subject matter for computer-related inventions: (1) “new computer hardware” and (2) “steps beyond those which [artisans] routinely and consciously perform.”
Background / Facts: The patents being asserted here are directed to computerized methods for “guiding the selection of a treatment regimen for a patient with a known disease or medical condition.” In this regard, the claims recite (1) “providing patient information to a computing device” having otherwise routine input, memory, look-up, comparison, and output capabilities, (2) “generating … a ranked listing of available therapeutic treatment regimens,” and (3) “generating … advisory information for one or more therapeutic treatment regimens in said ranked listing.”
Issue(s): Whether claims defined as using a computer to perform a series of otherwise routine mental steps are subject matter eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Holding(s): No. “Claim 1 does no more than call on a ‘computing device,’ with basic functionality for comparing stored and input data and rules, to do what doctors do routinely. … Claim 1 places only very broad limitations on a ‘computing device’: it must contain – like a doctor’s mind – a set of ‘expert rules for evaluating and selecting’ from a stored ‘plurality of different therapeutic treatment regimens,’ as well as ‘advisory information useful for the treatment of a patient with different constituents of said different therapeutic treatment regimens.’ … The claim does not purport to identify new computer hardware: it assumes the availability of physical components for input, memory, look-up, comparison, and output. Nor does it purport to identify any steps beyond those which doctors routinely and consciously perform.”