United States: Heads Up: The Federal Circuit Sees Patent Eligibility In Knowing Which Way To Look

Last Updated: April 18 2017
Article by Robert R. Sachs

The most significant Federal Circuit decision in March was Thales Visionix, Inc. v. United States, another case finding eligible subject matter.  What distinguishes this case—and demonstrates the inherently subjective I-know-it-when-I-see-it nature of the Alice test—is the extraordinary breadth of the claims.  Consider claim 22, a single-step method claim:

  1. A method comprising determining an orientation of an object relative to a moving reference frame based on signals from two inertial sensors mounted respectively on the object and on the moving reference frame.

The court held that this claim was patent eligible, because it was not directed to an abstract idea in Step 1 of the Alice test: 

We hold that the '159 patent claims at issue in this appeal are not directed to an abstract idea. The claims specify a particular configuration of inertial sensors and a particular method of using the raw data from the sensors in order to more accurately calculate the position and orientation of an object on a moving platform.  

This statement and the focus on the particularity of the claim is at odds with actual claim language and with the way the Alice test is normally applied.  The claim says nothing "particular" about the configuration other than one sensor is mounted on the object and one on the moving reference frame.  That's it.  No limitation of how mounted, how far or near each other, or they are oriented with respect to each other, or other physical parameters.  You could have one sensor mounted on an "object" (e.g. a sensor worn on the wrist of a passenger) in the front compartment of a mile-long train ("moving reference frame"), and the other sensor mounted in the caboose.   Indeed, there's nothing in the claim that even requires the object to be in or on the moving reference frame.  So one sensor could be mounted at the train station while the train with the passenger goes by.  And talk about abstraction: "moving reference frame."  That's anything that moves.  The court seems to be relying on something more about the arrangement of the sensors than is in the claims themselves, given how they quote Diehr: "This arrangement is analogous to the claims in Diehr, which required the temperature measurement "at a location closely adjacent to the mold cavity in the press during molding."  But Diehr has specific claimed spatial relations--"closely adjacent"-- Thales has none.  This suggests that the court was implicitly performing claim construction—which generally should happen before patent eligibility, but which the court has repeatedly kicked to the curb as a predicate of the Alice test.

Nor is there any limitation on how orientation is determined, other than "based on signals." There is no limitation on the kinds of signals, or how the determination is done.  In other words, this simply claims the result of getting an orientation when you have two sensors, one mounted on some object and one mounted on a moving reference frame. This "claiming the result" and the absence of "how" are precisely the features that the court has used in other cases to find ineligible subject matter—even with claims vastly more specific. 

Consider Vehicle Intelligence:

None of the claims at issue are limited to a particular kind of impairment, explain how to perform either screening or testing for any impairment, specify how to program the "expert system" to perform any screening or testing, or explain the nature of control to be exercised on the vehicle in response to the test results...

With a bit of obvious word substitution, this language applies directly to Thales' claim.

Or consider Electric Power Group, which had an extremely detailed claim.  Brushing such details aside, the court stated:

The claims, defining a desirable information-based result and not limited to inventive means of achieving the result, fail under § 101.


The focus of the asserted claims, as illustrated by claim 12 quoted above, is on collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis.


The advance they purport to make is a process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, then displaying the results, and not any particular assertedly inventive technology for performing those functions. They are therefore directed to an abstract idea.


Nothing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information...

The Electric Power court takes­ pains to point out that simply determining the results of information gathering (i.e. obtaining signals) is patent ineligible.  That's a direct read on "determining an orientation of an object relative to a moving reference frame based on signals."  How is it that "off-the-shelf" hardware failed to save the claim in Electric Power Group, but was apparently irrelevant in Thales, where the inertial sensors were off-the-shelf as well?

The answer is that the Thales court said that the method claim was not abstract because of the "unconventional configuration of sensors." Wait: the unconventional arrangement analysis is considered in Step 2, not Step 1.  That's what the court held in BASCOM:

As is the case here, an inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces.

And it's not clear that this even applies to Thales' method claim, which recites the single step of "determining."  The arrangement of the sensors is only inferentially claimed, as part of the environment itself.  In BASCOM the method claim included limitations that actively, not inferentially, performed the filtering operations at the unconventional locations.

Putting this all together, the court just as easily could have issued this ruling, and found the claim 22 ineligible:

First, we consider whether the claim is directed to an abstract idea.  Claim 22 recites a single step of "determining the orientation of an object relative to a moving reference frame."  Humans have been determining the orientation of objects relative to moving reference frames for time immemorial.  When we watch the faces of passengers go by in a moving train, we determine their orientation (which way they are looking).  When the cowhand on horseback watches how her cattle look at her sheepdog, she determines their orientation as well.  Indeed, one could say that the human brain is so well adapted to determining the orientation of objects, that we do not even notice that we do it all the time.  See, Peer et al, "Brain system for mental orientation in space, time, and person," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 112, no. 35 (Sept. 2015) ("Orientation is a fundamental mental function that processes the relations between the behaving self to space (places), time (events), and person (people)."). Thus, determining the orientation of an object relative to a moving reference frame is an abstract idea itself, and a mental step long practiced by humans.  As there is only this single step in claim 22, the claim is unmistakably "directed to" this abstract idea.

We turn then to Step 2.  The Supreme Court has held that merely limiting an abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not transform an otherwise ineligible concept into an eligible one.  Claim 22 only inferentially claims the use of the inertial sensors, at best limiting the single step of the claim to a rather generic, technological environment as opposed to a human one.  That alone cannot contribute an inventive concept.

Thales argues that the non-conventional arrangement of the inertial sensors provides the inventive concept.  That is true, however, only when the arrangement itself contributes to the specifically claimed functional operation of the claim.  In BASCOM, we held that arrangement was unconventional precisely because the functionality of the filtering was performed at the unconventional location ("The inventive concept described and claimed in the '606 patent is the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user.")  Here, nothing happens at the location of sensors themselves: they operate exactly the same way and provide the same types of signals that they would in any conventional arrangement.  Thus, the unconventional arrangement here does not contribute an inventive functionality.

Finally, we note that claim 22 fails to specify any inventive concept in "how" the determination is made, other than to say "based on signals."   In McRO we explained that in Step 2, "a patent may issue for the means or method of producing a certain result or effect, and not for the result or effect produced. We therefore look to whether the claims in these patents focus on a specific means or method that improves relevant technology." (emphasis added). But merely making the determining "based on" the signals does not provide a "specific means or "method" as required.  We do not read claim 22 as limited to the specific equations or mathematical framework in the specification.  Even if we did, these equations appear to be nothing more than laws of nature, and thus cannot contribute to the inventive concept.  See, Mayo, Flook. The absence of limitations to particular ways of making this determination or even particular types of signals clearly demonstrates the lack of an inventive concept beyond the merely abstract idea itself.  In other words, given inertial sensors (which themselves are conventional), how else would one determine an orientation except "based on signals"? See, Vehicle Intelligence ("But neither the claims at issue nor the specification provide any details as to how this "expert system" works or how it produces faster, more accurate and reliable results."). In McRO we held that "The abstract idea exception has been applied to prevent patenting of claims that abstractly cover results where it matters not by what process or machinery the result is accomplished."  Here, we find that the claim 22 covers the result of determining the orientation of an object relative to a moving reference frame where it matters not by what process or machinery that result is accomplished.

This analysis further shows that Thales' claim risks preempting the abstract idea itself, since there is no other way to make this determination of orientation. In this regard, we find the Supreme Court's decision in O'Reilly v. Morse remarkably on point in their framing of the preemption problem. The Court found that Morse's "claim is too broad, and not warranted by law" because:

It is impossible to misunderstand the extent of this claim. He claims the exclusive right to every improvement where the motive power is the electric or galvanic current [the signals are from inertial sensors mounted on an object and a moving reference frame], and the result is the marking or printing intelligible characters, signs, or letters at a distance [determining the orientation of the object based on the signals].

If this claim can be maintained, it matters not by what process or machinery the result is accomplished. For aught that we now know, some future inventor, in the onward march of science, may discover a mode of writing or printing at a distance [determining an orientation of an object] by means of the electric or galvanic current [inertial sensors], without using any part of the process or combination set forth in the plaintiff's specification. His invention may be less complicated -- less liable to get out of order -- less expensive in construction, and in its operation. But yet if it is covered by this patent, the inventor could not use it, nor the public have the benefit of it, without the permission of this patentee.

Like the Morse Court, we find claim 22 not warranted in law. 

Now, do I believe this is the correct analysis? To be clear I do not (so don't get any funny ideas about quote mining me).  I only elaborate it to demonstrate that while patent eligibility may no longer depend on the "clever draftsman," it can certainly depend on the clever jurist. 

I think that the court here saw what it wanted to see: a helmet-mounted display used by jet fighter pilots:

The context of Thales' invention was sufficiently "technological" and distinctive from the court's everyday experience with computers and software that collect and display information that it colored the court's perception of the claims and the Alice analysis.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Events from this Firm
12 Nov 2019, Panel, California, United States

​​While the headline news tracks every ebb and flow of the trade negotiation between the US and China, the accompanying infrastructural changes in China’s laws and regulations have escaped the mass media’s attention.

14 Nov 2019, Other, California, United States

LinkedIn, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and other social networking sites offer lawyers myriad avenues for communicating with each other and the public about a host of issues.

19 Nov 2019, Panel, Santa Clara, United States

The All Hands Meeting is a unique, multifaceted and affordable annual event tailored to the special needs of in-house professionals whose companies rely upon intellectual property.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions