directed to a specific type of self-referential table in a computer database were not abstract because they focused “on the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities (i.e,, the self-referential table for a computer database)”); McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims directed to automating part of a preexisting method for 3-D facial expression animation were not abstract because they “focused on a specific asserted improvement in computer animation, i.e., the automatic use of rules of a particular type.”). Similarly, the Federal Circuit has found that claims directed to a “new and useful technique” for performing a particular task were not abstract. Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (<HOLDING>); Rapid Litigation Management Ltd. v.
holding that claims for a method to calculate the optimal cure time for rubber were not abstract holding that claims directed to a new and useful technique for using sensors to more efficiently track an object on a moving platform were not abstract holding that where defendant failed to object to facts in psi relating to prior conviction the failure to object constituted an admission holding that claims raised by appellant for first time in motion for new trial were untimely and therefore waived holding that claims directed to a new and useful laboratory technique for preserving hepatocytes a type of liver cell were not abstract