“employ[ed] a well-known mathematical equation,” the claims were directed only at “the use of that equation in conjunction with all of the other steps in their claimed process”). When applying the Alice/Mayo two-step analysis, it is appropriate to consider the specification of the patent to understand the nature of the claimed in vention. Nevertheless, to determine patent eligibility under § 101, “the important inquiry for a § 101 analysis is to look to the claim,” Accenture Global Services, GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed.Cir.2013), as it is the claims that have a preclusive effect, see Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315, 1334 (Fed.Cir.2012); see also Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Prods. Co., 336 U.S. 271, 277, 69 S.Ct. 535, 93 L.Ed. 672 (1949) (<HOLDING>). Thus, the specification, regardless how
holding that the claims text must be sufficient to particularly point out and distinctly claim an identifiable invention or discovery because it is the claim which measures the grant to the patentee recognizing that a withholding of removal claim necessarily fails if the applicant is unable to show the objective likelihood of persecution needed to make out an asylum claim and the factual predicate for the claims is the same holding that the scope of coverage of the claims may change if a patentee has relinquished a potential claim construction in an amendment to the claim or in an argument to overcome or distinguish a reference holding that in the case where patentee was attempting to argue that parallel meant perpendicular with respect to a particular claim and a claim ended with an incomplete limitation the claims at issue were indefinite holding that defendant was entitled to summary judgment on conversion claim because the claim seeks merely to recover an allegedly unpaid debt and does not seek to recover money from a discrete identifiable fund