abstract idea. For example, courts have considered whether the claims purport to “improve the functioning of the computer itself,” Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2359, which may suggest that the claims are not abstract, or instead whether “computers are invoked merely as a tool” to carry out an abstract process. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335; see also id. .(noting that “some improvements in computer-related technology when appropriately claimed are undoubtedly not abstract, such as a chip architecture, an LED display, and the like. Nor do we think that claims directed to software, as opposed to hardware, are inherently abstract!)]”). The Federal Circuit has followed this approach to find claims patent-eligible in several cases. See id. at 1335-36 (cla , Inc., 827 F.3d 1042, 1045, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (<HOLDING>); see also Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 177,
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 laboratory technique for preserving hepatocytes a type of liver cell 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 the defendant lacked any expectation of privacy in his cell so the jailer had the right to inspect anything in his cell holding seizure of arrestees cell phone lawful but finding the fourth amendment requires a warrant to perform a forensic search of the lawfully seized cell phone