information of a specified content, then displaying the results, and not any particular assertedly inventive technology for performing those functions”); see also id. (collecting cases). However, the determination of whether other types of computer-implemented claims are abstract has proven more “elusive.” See, e.g., Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[P]recision has been elusive in defining an all-purpose boundary between the abstract and the concrete.”) As a result, in addition to comparing claims to prior U.S. Supreme Court and Federal Circuit precedents, courts considering computer-implemented inventions have taken varied approaches to determining whether particular claims are directed to a 01 S.Ct. 1048, 67 L.Ed.2d 155 (1981) (<HOLDING>). Another helpful tool used by courts in the
holding that claims which were not presented to the motion court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal 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 raised by appellant for first time in motion for new trial were untimely and therefore waived 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