PATENTS - Alice v. CLS

From CLS's Feb. 20th respondent's brief:

Alice’s effort to avoid the fatal import of Bilski turns on its contention that the abstract idea doctrine has no force unless “the claims recite a mathematical formula, a ‘fundamental economic practice’ that can be ‘reduced to a mathematical formula,’ or any other form of fundamental truth that ‘exists in principle apart from any human action.’ 

[...]

Contrary to Alice’s repeated assertion, Bilski’s dependent claim 4 - a narrowed variant of claim 1 - did not reduce the entire method to a mathematical formula. See, e.g., Pet. Br. 16. Rather, the formula of claim 4 provided only one way of calculating certain inputs for the method of hedging described in *20 independent claim 1. See Bilski J.A. 19-20. Claim 4 and the other “remaining claims” were ineligible not because they included a formula, but because they added mere “token” limitations to the abstract idea of risk hedging recited in the broader independent claim

[...]

The PTO’s post-Bilski guidelines, likewise, describe a number of other clearly human actions as abstract ideas. These include “[b]asic legal theories,” “[i]nterpersonal interactions or relationships,” “[t]eaching concepts,” “[h]uman behavior,” and “[i]nstructing ‘how business should be conducted.’ ” MPEP § 2106.II.B.1(d)(f). None of these would fit into Alice’s rigid taxonomy of mathematical formulas or fundamental truths. Alice’s newly minted approach to abstract ideas cannot be reconciled with the PTO’s guidance, which, in turn, is based on Bilski. That is undoubtedly why Alice’s brief does not even mention this post-Bilski guidance. 

CLS's following section title: Alice’s Patents Claim The Fundamental Economic Principle Of Intermediated Settlement.