PTAB Finds MRI Machine Claims Patent-Ineligible Under Alice

Jan 19, 2017

Reading Time : 2 min

Inventors Hiroyuki Itagaki and Takashi Nishihara filed an appeal with the PTAB after a United States Patent and Trademark Office examiner rejected the claims as obvious under § 103. The panel of administrative law judges reversed the examiner’s § 103 rejections. However, the PTAB found new grounds for rejecting the claims under § 101. The application discloses an MRI machine and image classification method wherein the MRI machine classifies and rearranges multiple images, making it easier for a user to compare images. In finding the claims abstract under § 101, the PTAB applied the two-step analytical framework outlined in the Supreme Court’s decision in Alice v. CLS Bank.

The first step under Alice requires that the board examine whether the claims are directed toward a patent-ineligible concept, such as an abstract idea. Here, the claimed subject matter was directed toward image classification. The board reasoned that “[c]lassification is a building block of human ingenuity” and “[a]s such the classification concept is directed toward an abstract idea.”

The second step under Alice involves “a search for an ‘inventive concept’—i.e., an element or combination of elements that is sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the ineligible concept itself.” The PTAB held that merely applying the image classification concept to an MRI machine does not make the classification concept any less abstract, stating generally that “a recitation of practical application for an abstract idea is insufficient to transform an abstract idea into an inventive concept.”

The PTAB noted that the multi-station MRI machine described by claim 1 was not otherwise patentably distinct from typical multi-station MRI machines available at the time the application was filed. The PTAB then considered the “classification processing unit,” which was described as “a classification processing unit configured to classify the plurality of images by image types and station position, based on imaging condition including imaging parameters.” The board held that, because the “unit” was described in general functional terms, the description “does little to patentably transform the classification abstract idea.”

The PTAB concluded that “[c]lassifying images is not transformed into an inventive concept by simply applying it to the images a typical multi-station MRI necessarily produces.” Accordingly, under the analytical methodology outlined by Alice, the PTAB found the clams patent-ineligible under § 101.

Ex Parte Itagaki, et al, Appeal No. 2015-002702 (PTAB Dec. 29, 2016). [Lorin (opinion), Mohanty and Meyers]

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

April 1, 2025

The District of Delaware recently denied in part a motion to compel production of documents and testimony between a patentee and potential investors, valuation firms and an international bank based on the common interest exception. In so doing, the court reaffirmed that disclosure of privileged information to third parties will generally waive privilege unless it can be shown that the parties’ interests are identical and the communications are legal, not solely commercial.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 24, 2025

The Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decision holding that the prior art exception of AIA Section 102(b)(2)(B) does not apply to a prior sale by an inventor when the sale is conducted in private. According to the Federal Circuit, a sale must disclose the relevant aspects of the invention to the public to qualify for the prior art exception of Section 102(b)(2)(B).

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 21, 2025

Under the Lanham Act, a plaintiff who prevails on a trademark infringement claim may be entitled to recover the “defendant’s profits” as damages. The Supreme Court in Dewberry Group, Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers Inc. unanimously construed “defendant’s profits” in 35 USC § 1117(a) to mean that only the named defendant’s profits can be awarded, not the profits of other related corporate entities. The Court, however, left open the possibility that other language in § 1117(a) may allow for damages linked to the profits of related entities, if properly raised and supported.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 13, 2025

In a series of rulings on a motion in limine, the District of Delaware recently distinguished between what qualifies as being incorporated by reference and what does not for the purposes of an anticipation defense. In short, a parenthetical citation was held to be insufficient, while three passages discussing a cited reference met the test.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 4, 2025

On February 28, 2025, the USPTO announced that it was rescinding former Director Vidal’s 2022 memorandum on discretionary denials by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The 2022 memorandum effectively narrowed the application of discretionary denials in cases with parallel district court litigation by specifying instances where discretionary denial could not be issued. With the withdrawal of the memorandum, individual PTAB panels will regain flexibility in weighing discretionary denials. While the long-term effect of that increased flexibility is not yet known, the immediate effect is likely to be a shift towards the discretionary analysis applied by PTAB panels before the issuance of the memorandum.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 3, 2025

A District of Delaware judge recently granted a defendant’s motion to include a patent prosecution bar in its proposed protective order after determining that litigation counsel’s ability to practice before the Patent Office—without ever having represented the plaintiffs at the Patent Office in the past—weighed heavily in favor of the bar.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 12, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently reversed a district court decision that found a patent that did not describe after-arising technology failed to satisfy the written description requirement. In so doing, the Federal Circuit explained that written description and enablement are evaluated based on the subject matter that is claimed, not the products that practice those claims. As a result, the patentee was not required to describe unclaimed, later-discovered features of the accused products despite the broad language in the claims that undisputedly covered the products.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

January 24, 2025

The District of Delaware recently rejected a patentee’s argument that non-production of an opinion letter from counsel, combined with knowledge of the patent, warranted a finding that defendant induced infringement.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.