Worlds Inc (WDDD)

[madprophet]

Start looking at actual decisions by Wallach and Mayer such as this below. Wallach was on panel, yet"-----
Issue/Holding:
Whether the court erred in finding the claims patent-ineligible under §101? Yes, reversed
and remanded


THALES VISIONIX INC. v. UNITED STATES, Appeal Nos. 2015-5150. (Fed. Cir. March 8,
2017). Before Moore, Wallach and Stoll. Appealed from Ct. Fed. Claims (Judge Moore).
Background:
Thales sued the U.S. government for infringement of its patent directed to an inertial
tracking system for tracking the orientation of an object. The Court of Federal Claims granted
defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding all claims directed to patent-ineligible
subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101. The court found the claims: (1) are directed to the abstract
idea of using laws of nature governing motion to track two objects, and (2) provide no inventive
concept beyond the abstract idea. Thales appealed.
Issue/Holding:
Whether the court erred in finding the claims patent-ineligible under §101? Yes, reversed
and remanded.
Discussion:
The Federal Circuit found the claims are directed to a patent-eligible concept under the
first step of the Alice analysis. For the purpose of evaluating patent eligibility, the claims were
found to be nearly indistinguishable from the claims found eligible in Diehr. While the claims
utilize mathematical equations to determine the orientation of an object relative to a moving
reference frame, the equations -- dictated by the placement of the sensors and the laws of physics
-- serve only to tabulate the position and orientation information in this configuration. Just as the
claims in Diehr reduced the likelihood that the rubber molding process would result in
undercuring or overcuring of the rubber, the claims here result in a system that reduces errors in
an inertial system that tracks an object on a moving platform.

The claims are not merely directed to the abstract idea of using "mathematical equations
for determining the relative position of a moving object relative to a moving reference frame" as
asserted by the lower court. Instead, the claims are directed to systems and methods that use
inertial sensors in non-conventional ways to reduce errors in measuring the relative position and
orientation.

https://www.oliff.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/2015-5150-OB.pdf