Case: 22-2109 Document: 61 Page: 1 Filed: 04/04/2024
`
`
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`AI VISUALIZE, INC.,
`Plaintiff-Appellant
`
`v.
`
`NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC., MACH7
`TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Defendants-Appellees
`______________________
`
`2022-2109
`______________________
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court for the
`District of Delaware in No. 1:21-cv-01458-RGA, Judge
`Richard G. Andrews.
`______________________
`
`Decided: April 4, 2024
`______________________
`
`RAJKUMAR VINNAKOTA, Cole Schotz P.C., Dallas, TX,
`argued for plaintiff-appellant.
` Also represented by
`TIMOTHY J.H. CRADDOCK, VISHAL H. PATEL.
`
` ANISH R. DESAI, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, New
`York, NY, argued for all defendants-appellees. Defendant-
`appellee Nuance Communications, Inc. also represented by
`DAVID JASON LENDER; AMANDA BRANCH, PRIYATA PATEL,
`Washington, DC; DAVID GREENBAUM, Greenbaum Law
`LLC, Englewood, NJ.
`
`
`

`

`Case: 22-2109 Document: 61 Page: 2 Filed: 04/04/2024
`
`2
`
`AI VISUALIZE, INC. v. NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
`
` ALAN RICHARD SILVERSTEIN, Connolly Gallagher LLP,
`Wilmington, DE, for defendant-appellee Mach7 Technolo-
`gies, Inc.
`
`______________________
`
`Before MOORE, Chief Judge, REYNA and HUGHES, Circuit
`Judges.
`
`REYNA, Circuit Judge.
`AI Visualize, Inc. sued Nuance Communications, Inc.
`and Mach7 Technologies, Inc. in the District of Delaware
`for patent infringement. Nuance and Mach7 moved to dis-
`miss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for fail-
`ure to state a claim. They argued that the asserted patent
`claims were directed to patent-ineligible subject matter
`and therefore invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The district
`court granted the motion, finding the asserted claims were
`directed to an abstract idea and failed to provide an in-
`ventive step that transformed that abstract idea into a pa-
`tent-eligible
`invention. The district court entered
`judgment and dismissed AI Visualize’s case. For the rea-
`sons below, we affirm.
`BACKGROUND
`A. The Asserted Patents
`The four patents at issue are U.S. Patent Nos.
`8,701,167 (’167 patent), 9,106,609 (’609 patent), 9,438,667
`(’667 patent), and 10,930,397 (’397 patent). They are part
`of the same patent family and share substantially the same
`specification.1 The field of the asserted patents generally
`relates to visualization of medical scans. Each patent is
`titled “Method and system for fast access to advanced vis-
`ualization of medical scans using a dedicated web portal.”
`
`
`1 We refer to the ’609 patent specification for all four
`asserted patents.
`
`

`

`Case: 22-2109 Document: 61 Page: 3 Filed: 04/04/2024
`
`AI VISUALIZE, INC. v. NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
`
`3
`
`According to the patents, medical imaging systems like
`magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans typically create a
`collection of two-dimensional cross-section images of a pa-
`tient’s body or organ. ’609 patent, 1:27–32. These images
`are often stored together at a centralized server as a three-
`dimensional collection of data representing the scanned
`area, referred to as a “volume visualization dataset” or
`“VVD”. Id. at 1:30–35. At the time of the invention, “[t]ech-
`nology exist[ed]” to use these VVDs “to present rich[] three-
`dimensional (3D) views from existing two-dimensional (2D)
`scans that may lead to better diagnosis and prognosis.” Id.
`at 1:22–25; see also id. at 1:35–46.
`But the inventors recognized complications with at-
`tempts to view portions of these large VVDs at a client com-
`puter. To look at a three-dimensional view, “either the
`user’s computer or a dedicated server need[ed] to be pow-
`erful enough to support [the] processing power and the 2D
`scans need[ed] to be directly available to the user’s com-
`puter via a high speed communication link.” Id. at 1:49–53.
`The patents thus explain that “[t]he present invention
`overcomes this limitation by teaching a method and system
`of a common and centralized infrastructure, for receiving,
`storing, processing and viewing large medical scans via a
`low-bandwidth web portal.” Id. at 1:58–62. They describe
`systems and methods for users to review three-dimensional
`(or higher dimension) “virtual views” of a VVD on a com-
`puter connected to the internet without having to transmit
`or locally store the entire VVD. Id. at 2:52–57.
`At issue in this appeal are claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 12, and 13
`of the ’167 patent; claims 1, 4, 6–9, 19, 20, 22, 25, and 26 of
`the ’609 patent; claims 1–3, 8, 9, 11, 14, and 15 of the ’667
`patent; and claims 1–3, 11–14, and 16–18 of the ’397 pa-
`tent. The parties agree that for purposes of a 35 U.S.C.
`§ 101 analysis, these asserted claims can be sorted into
`three groups, with each group represented by one claim of
`the ’609 patent. See Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360,
`1365 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding that claims may be treated
`
`

`

`Case: 22-2109 Document: 61 Page: 4 Filed: 04/04/2024
`
`4
`
`AI VISUALIZE, INC. v. NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
`
`as “representative” in a § 101 inquiry if a patentee makes
`no “meaningful argument for the distinctive significance of
`any claim limitations not found in the representative
`claim”).
`The claims in group 1 involve systems where a web ap-
`plication determines which frames of a virtual view, if any,
`are already stored locally on a user’s device; directs the
`server to create any necessary, additional frames for trans-
`mission to the user’s device; compiles at the user’s device
`the locally-stored and newly-received frames to create the
`desired virtual view; and displays the user’s requested vir-
`tual view. ’609 patent, claim 1. The parties agree that
`claim 1 of the ’609 patent is representative of the group 1
`claims.2 Claim 1 recites:
`1. A system for viewing at a client device
`at a remote location a series of three-di-
`mensional virtual views over the Internet
`of a volume visualization dataset contained
`on at least one centralized database com-
`prising:
`at least one transmitter for accepting vol-
`ume visualization dataset from remote lo-
`cation and transmitting it securely to the
`centralized database;
`at least one central data storage medium
`containing the volume visualization da-
`taset;
`a plurality of servers in communication
`with the at least one centralized database
`
`
`2 The group 1 claims are: claims 1, 4, and 6–9 of the
`’609 patent; claim 1 of the ’167 patent; claims 1–3 of the
`’667 patent; and claims 1–3, 11–14, and 16–18 of the ’397
`patent.
`
`

`

`Case: 22-2109 Document: 61 Page: 5 Filed: 04/04/2024
`
`AI VISUALIZE, INC. v. NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
`
`5
`
`and capable of processing the volume visu-
`alization dataset to create virtual views
`based on client request;
`a resource manager device for load balanc-
`ing the plurality of servers;
`a security device controlling the plurality of
`communications between a client device,
`and the server; including resource manager
`and central storage medium;
`at least one physically secured site for
`housing the centralized database, plurality
`of servers, at least a resource manager, and
`at least a security device;
`a web application adapted to satisfy a
`user’s request for the three-dimensional
`virtual views by: a) accepting at a remote
`location at least one user request for a se-
`ries of virtual views of the volume visuali-
`zation dataset,
`the series of views
`comprising a plurality of separate view
`frames, the remote location having a local
`data storage medium for storing frames of
`views of the volume visualization dataset,
`b) determining if any frame of the re-
`quested views of the volume visualization
`dataset is stored on the local data storage
`medium, c) transmitting from the remote
`location to at least one of the servers a re-
`quest for any frame of the requested views
`not stored on the local data storage me-
`dium, d) at at least one of the servers, cre-
`ating the requested frames of the requested
`views from the volume visualization da-
`taset in the central storage medium, e)
`transmitting the created frames of the re-
`quested views from at least one of the
`
`

`

`Case: 22-2109 Document: 61 Page: 6 Filed: 04/04/2024
`
`6
`
`AI VISUALIZE, INC. v. NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
`
`servers to the client device, f) receiving the
`requested views from the at least one
`server, and displaying to the user at the re-
`mote location the requested series of three-
`dimensional virtual views of the volume
`visualization dataset by sequentially dis-
`playing frames transmitted from at least
`one of the servers along with any frames of
`the requested series of views stored on the
`local data storage medium.
`Id. at claim 1.
`Claim 19 of the ’609 patent, a dependent claim that de-
`pends from claim 1, is representative of the group 2
`claims.3 The claims in group 2 involve the same core sys-
`tem as the group 1 claims. The group 2 claims further re-
`quire that if a virtual view has been previously requested
`by a user, it is assigned a “unique identifiable key.” Id. at
`18:42–44. The web application compares the current user
`request for a virtual view to any previous user requests and
`determines whether any image frames with a correspond-
`ing unique identifiable key are already locally stored. Id.
`at 18:48–60.
`Claim 22 of the ’609 patent is representative of the
`group 3 claims.4 Unlike the claims in groups 1 and 2, the
`claims in group 3 do not include the step of initially check-
`ing to see whether any frames for the user’s requested vir-
`tual view are stored locally. See generally id. at 19:26–51.
`The web application requests all the frames from the
`
`
`3 The group 2 claims are: claims 19–20 of the ’609
`patent; claims 6–7 of the ’167 patent; and claims 8–9 of the
`’667 patent.
`4 The group 3 claims are: claims 22, 25, and 26 of the
`’609 patent; claims 9, 12, and 13 of the ’167 patent; and
`claims 11, 14, and 15 of the ’667 patent.
`
`

`

`Case: 22-2109 Document: 61 Page: 7 Filed: 04/04/2024
`
`AI VISUALIZE, INC. v. NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
`
`7
`
`centralized server. The server transmits lower-quality ver-
`sions of the frames for immediate viewing. It then trans-
`mits the higher-quality versions.
`B. Procedural History
`In October 2021, AI Visualize sued Appellees Nuance
`Communications, Inc. and Mach7 Technologies, Inc. (col-
`lectively, Nuance) in the District of Delaware for patent in-
`fringement. After Nuance moved to dismiss AI Visualize’s
`complaint for failure to state a claim, AI Visualize filed a
`first amended complaint. Nuance again moved to dismiss.
`AI Visualize, Inc. v. Nuance Commc’ns, Inc., 610 F. Supp.
`3d 638, 640–41 (D. Del. 2022) (“Decision”). It argued that
`the amended complaint should be dismissed because the
`asserted claims were directed to patent-ineligible subject
`matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Id.
`In its decision regarding the motion, the district court
`first observed that “[n]either party has argued that the
`Amended Complaint provides any additional information
`relevant to the patent eligibility of the Asserted Claims and
`neither party asserts that claim construction is needed.”
`Id. at 644. The district court then reviewed the claims, ap-
`plying the two-step Alice inquiry, and concluded that all
`the asserted claims were patent-ineligible. See id. at 649.
`Turning to Alice step one, the district court concluded
`that all the asserted claims are directed to the abstract idea
`of “retrieving user-requested, remotely stored
`infor-
`mation.” See, e.g., id. at 646. The district court reviewed
`the specification and found that the asserted patents at-
`tempted to address prior art problems with transmitting
`large VVDs over a standard internet connection. Id. The
`district court stated that the focus of the claimed advance
`over the prior art is “selectively accessing user-requested
`data, remotely, that is stored in a centralized storage loca-
`tion.” Id. It rejected AI Visualize’s arguments that the
`claims are directed to improvements in computer function-
`ality. Id.
`
`

`

`Case: 22-2109 Document: 61 Page: 8 Filed: 04/04/2024
`
`8
`
`AI VISUALIZE, INC. v. NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
`
`At Alice step two, the district court independently con-
`sidered each of the three representative claims. It con-
`cluded that no claim
`limitations transformed the
`representative claims into a patent-eligible applications of
`an abstract idea. For example, for the group 1 claims, the
`district court found that the “inventive component of
`Claim 1 is the ability to obtain virtual views of a VVD over
`a low bandwidth, high latency network.” Id. at 647 (inter-
`nal quotations omitted). It then stated that only one limi-
`tation in Claim 1 related to “achieving that stated goal,”
`and concluded that the limitation was “claimed function-
`ally, at a high level of generality,” such that it did not save
`the claims from abstraction. Id. at 647–48. It conducted a
`similar Alice step two inquiry for the group 2 and group 3
`claims, and ultimately held all asserted claims patent-inel-
`igible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See id. at 648–49.
`AI Visualize appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28
`U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
`
`DISCUSSION
`We review the grant of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dis-
`miss under the law of the applicable regional circuit, in this
`case, the Third Circuit. Endo Pharms. Inc. v. Teva Pharms.
`USA, Inc., 919 F.3d 1347, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2019). The Third
`Circuit reviews de novo a district court’s grant of a
`Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Id. (citing Ballentine v.
`United States, 486 F.3d 806, 808 (3d Cir. 2007)). To survive
`a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a complaint must allege “enough
`facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
`Section 101 of the Patent Act provides that: “Whoever
`invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine,
`manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and
`useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor,
`subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.”
`35 U.S.C. § 101. But § 101 “contains an important implicit
`exception: Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and
`
`

`

`Case: 22-2109 Document: 61 Page: 9 Filed: 04/04/2024
`
`AI VISUALIZE, INC. v. NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
`
`9
`
`abstract ideas are not patentable.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v.
`CLS Bank Intern., 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014) (citations omit-
`ted). The Supreme Court has articulated a two-step test,
`commonly referred to as the “Alice” test, for examining
`whether a patent claims patent-ineligible subject matter.
`Id. at 217–18. Under step one of the Alice test, we review
`whether a claim is directed to a patent-ineligible concept
`like an abstract idea. Id. at 217. If the answer is no, then
`the inquiry ends. Id. But if the answer is yes, the inquiry
`proceeds to the second step. Id. At step two, we review
`whether the claim recites elements sufficient to transform
`it into a patent-eligible application. Id. at 217–18.
`We review § 101 patent eligibility under Federal Cir-
`cuit law. Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chi. Transit
`Auth., 873 F.3d 1364, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Eligibility is
`ultimately a question of law that may be based on underly-
`ing factual findings. Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1365. And it
`may be resolved on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion “where the un-
`disputed facts, considered under the standards required by
`that Rule, require a holding of ineligibility under the sub-
`stantive standards of law.” SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic,
`LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1166 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
`A. Alice Step One
`Under Alice step one, we consider whether the claims
`at issue are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter,
`here, an abstract idea. This “directed to” inquiry does more
`than “simply ask whether the claims involve a patent-inel-
`igible concept.” Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d
`1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (emphasis in original). Instead,
`we must look to the character of the claims as a whole to
`determine whether they are “directed to” patent-ineligible
`subject matter. Id.
`We often conduct the Alice step one inquiry by examin-
`ing the “focus of the claimed advance over the prior
`art.” Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838
`F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also Enfish, 822 F.3d
`
`

`

`Case: 22-2109 Document: 61 Page: 10 Filed: 04/04/2024
`
`10
`
`AI VISUALIZE, INC. v. NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
`
`at 1335. In the realm of computer-related technology, such
`as in this case, patent claims may be non-abstract at Alice
`step one if the focus of the claimed advance is on an im-
`provement in computer technologies, rather than the mere
`use of computers. Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
`830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The claims must “fo-
`cus on a specific means or method that improves the rele-
`vant technology.” McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am.
`Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`We determine if the claim’s character as a whole is di-
`rected to ineligible subject matter by considering the claim
`limitations that are purported to describe the claimed ad-
`vance over the prior art. Free Stream Media Corp. v. Al-
`phonso Inc., 996 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2021). We
`recognize the focus of the claims without characterizing the
`claims at too high of a level of generality, untethered from
`the claim language itself. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1337. Fi-
`nally, we consider the claims in light of the specification
`but avoid importing concepts from the specification into the
`claims. ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d
`759, 767, 769 (Fed. Cir. 2019); cf. Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`We agree with the district court that at Alice step one,
`all the asserted claims were directed to an abstract idea.
`See, e.g., Decision, 610 F. Supp. 3d at 646. We have ex-
`plained that the steps of obtaining, manipulating, and dis-
`playing data, particularly when claimed at a high level of
`generality, are abstract concepts. See, e.g., Elec. Power
`Grp., 830 F.3d at 1353–54 (collecting cases). Here, the
`claims in groups 1 and 2 recite a system that includes the
`functionally-oriented steps of: storing data (VVD) on a
`server, accepting user requests to view a portion of that
`data (virtual views), checking for the location of all data
`needed for the virtual view, “creating” image frames from
`any non-locally-stored virtual view data, transmitting all
`non-locally-stored image frames to the user, compiling all
`image frames, and sequentially displaying the image
`
`

`

`Case: 22-2109 Document: 61 Page: 11 Filed: 04/04/2024
`
`AI VISUALIZE, INC. v. NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
`
`11
`
`frames to the user. See ’609 patent, claim 1. The group 3
`claims are similar. They involve transmitting two versions
`of all frames—initial, low-quality versions followed by
`higher-quality versions—from the server to the user. Id.
`at claim 22. In other words, the asserted claims are di-
`rected to converting data and using computers to collect,
`manipulate, and display the data.
`We reached a similar conclusion in Hawk Tech. Sys.,
`LLC v. Castle Retail, LLC, 60 F.4th 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2023).
`Hawk considered patent claims involving “viewing multi-
`ple simultaneously displayed and stored video images on a
`remote viewing device of a video surveillance system.” Id.
`at 1352. The patent holder emphasized that the claims re-
`quired converting video data using certain parameters in
`such a manner that the data could be manipulated and dis-
`played to conserve bandwidth and preserve the data qual-
`ity. Id. at 1357. But “converting information from one
`format to another . . . is an abstract idea.” Id.
`AI Visualize argues that the claims are not directed to
`an abstract idea because the claims require the creation of
`“on the fly” virtual views at a client computer. See, e.g.,
`Appellant Br. 28–29; Reply Br. 4. But the claim language
`makes clear that virtual view “creation” is achieved by the
`manipulation of a portion of the existing VVD. See, e.g.,
`’609 Patent, 17:25–27, 17:38–39. For example, Claim 1 of
`the ’609 patent requires “accepting at a remote location at
`least one user request for a series of virtual views of the
`volume visualization dataset” and “creating the requested
`frames of the requested views from the volume visualiza-
`tion dataset.” Id. (emphasis added). As in Hawk, this “cre-
`ation” of a virtual view from the existing VVD, recited in
`general terms, is abstract data manipulation.
`AI Visualize points to multiple passages of the specifi-
`cation to support its view that “creation” of virtual views
`provides a technical solution to a technical problem, includ-
`ing one passage that addresses dynamic and static virtual
`
`

`

`Case: 22-2109 Document: 61 Page: 12 Filed: 04/04/2024
`
`12
`
`AI VISUALIZE, INC. v. NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
`
`views by describing how related image frames are selected
`from a VVD. See id. at 9:34–52. As noted, we refuse to
`import details from the specification if those details are
`themselves not claimed. ChargePoint, 920 F.3d at 769.
`There is no recitation in the claim about how to create
`frames or virtual views, much less in a manner that would
`meaningfully support a technical solution to a technical
`problem in the prior art.
`We conclude that the asserted claims are directed to an
`abstract idea.
`
`B. Alice Step Two
`AI Visualize argues that to the extent the claims are
`found to be patent-ineligible at Alice step one, the claims
`are made patent-eligible at Alice step two.
`At Alice step two, we consider the claim elements indi-
`vidually and as an ordered combination to assess whether
`they “transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligi-
`ble application of the abstract idea.” Two-Way Media Ltd.
`v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1338
`(Fed. Cir. 2017) (citation omitted). At this step we must
`ask: “[w]hat else is there in the claims before us?” Mayo
`Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Lab’ys, Inc., 566 U.S.
`66, 78 (2012). To survive at Alice step two, a claim must
`recite something “significantly more” than an abstract idea
`itself. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18. A claim cannot rest on
`the patent-ineligible concept alone to transform the inven-
`tion into something significantly more than that concept.
`BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290
`(Fed. Cir. 2018). Nor can claim elements or combinations
`of claim elements that are routine, conventional, or well-
`known transform the claims. Id. at 1290–91.
`Although Alice step two involves a question of law,
`whether a claim limitation or combination of limitations is
`well-understood, routine, and conventional may involve an
`underlying factual question. Id. at 1290 (“Whether a
`
`

`

`Case: 22-2109 Document: 61 Page: 13 Filed: 04/04/2024
`
`AI VISUALIZE, INC. v. NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
`
`13
`
`combination of claim limitations supplies an inventive con-
`cept that renders a claim ‘significantly more’ than an ab-
`stract idea to which it is directed is a question of law.
`Underlying factual determinations may inform this legal
`determination.”). Thus, at the motion to dismiss stage, “pa-
`tentees who adequately allege their claims contain in-
`ventive concepts survive a § 101 eligibility analysis under
`Rule 12(b)(6).” Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Soft-
`ware, Inc., 882 F.3d 1121, 1126–27 (Fed. Cir. 2018); see also
`Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc., 927 F.3d 1306, 1317–18
`(Fed. Cir. 2019). Conclusory allegations, Simio, LLC v.
`FlexSim Software Prod., Inc., 983 F.3d 1353, 1365 (Fed.
`Cir. 2020), or those “wholly divorced” from the claims or the
`specification, Cellspin, 927 F.3d at 1317, cannot defeat a
`motion to dismiss. And a patentee that emphasizes a
`claim’s use of certain technology, for example, a general-
`purpose computer, fails at step two when the intrinsic rec-
`ord establishes that the technology is conventional or well-
`known in the art. See, e.g., Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp. v. Zillow
`Grp., Inc., 50 F.4th 1371, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2022).
`Here, the district court observed that AI Visualize
`made no arguments regarding additional allegations in the
`amended complaint, nor presented any assertions that the
`construction of certain claim terms was relevant to the Al-
`ice inquiry. Decision, 610 F. Supp. 3d at 644. Based on its
`review of the intrinsic record and the allegations in the
`complaint, the district court ultimately concluded that each
`group of asserted claims involved nothing more than the
`abstract idea itself or conventional computer functions or
`components. Id. at 647–49. For example, for both group 2
`and 3 claims, the district court determined the alleged in-
`ventive concepts in the claims were no more than the ab-
`stract ideas themselves. Id. at 648–49. It determined that
`nothing in the claim limitations transformed the abstract
`nature of the claims into patent-eligible subject matter. Id.
`at 647–49. We agree.
`
`

`

`Case: 22-2109 Document: 61 Page: 14 Filed: 04/04/2024
`
`14
`
`AI VISUALIZE, INC. v. NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
`
`AI Visualize argues that the creation of virtual views
`sufficiently transforms the claims into patent-eligible sub-
`ject matter. See, e.g., Appellant Br. 43–45; Reply Br. 26.
`But as we noted above, the claimed step of creating a vir-
`tual view is itself an abstract idea. See Hawk, 60 F.4th
`at 1359. Moreover, the intrinsic record undermines AI Vis-
`ualize’s argument by showing that virtual views were
`known in the art. ’609 patent, 1:22–25. The shared speci-
`fication provides that technology existed at the time of the
`invention “to present richer three-dimensional (3D) views
`from existing two-dimensional (2D) scans that may lead to
`better diagnosis and prognosis.” Id. AI Visualize acknowl-
`edged this at oral argument. See, e.g., Oral Arg. 2:40–3:13.
`AI Visualize also argues that creation of virtual views
`“on demand” or in “real-time” in response to a user request
`transforms the claims into something “significantly more”
`than the abstract idea. See, e.g., Appellant Br. 43. We are
`not persuaded. In Affinity Labs, we found claims involving
`a “customized user interface” failed to recite an inventive
`concept. Affinity Labs, 838 F.3d at 1271–72. Without a
`“concrete application of the abstract idea of delivering con-
`tent,” the claims were not transformed into patent-eligible
`subject matter at Alice step two. Id. at 1272. Similarly in
`Electric Power Group, the claimed invention purported to
`pull information regarding power grid operations from
`many sources, process and analyze it, and display relevant
`data to a user “in real time”. Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at
`1356. Because the claims disclosed only “entirely conven-
`tional, generic technology,” they remained patent-ineligi-
`ble at Alice step two. Id. As in Affinity Labs and Electric
`Power, AI Visualize’s amended complaint has not made
`sufficient factual allegations to support that the claims in-
`volve unconventional technology or a concrete application
`of the abstract idea of virtual view “creation.” AI Visual-
`ize’s claim that the “virtual views” are created “on the fly,”
`without more, cannot support patent eligibility at Alice
`step two.
`
`

`

`Case: 22-2109 Document: 61 Page: 15 Filed: 04/04/2024
`
`AI VISUALIZE, INC. v. NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
`
`15
`
`AI Visualize’s amended complaint also failed to ade-
`quately allege an inventive concept in the ordered combi-
`nation of claim limitations. “[M]erely reciting an abstract
`idea performed on a set of generic computer components,
`as [the claims] do[] here, would ‘not contain an inventive
`concept.’” Two-Way Media, 874 F.3d at 1339 (quoting
`BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility
`LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). We therefore
`agree with the district court that AI Visualize’s claims are
`not saved at Alice step two.
`We hold that the asserted claims are patent ineligible
`because they are directed to an abstract idea and fail to
`transform that abstract idea into patent-eligible subject
`matter.
`
`CONCLUSION
`We have considered AI Visualize’s other arguments
`and find them unpersuasive. For the above reasons, we
`hold that the asserted claims are directed to patent-ineligi-
`ble subject matter. We thus affirm the district court’s dis-
`missal under Rule 12(b)(6) based on subject matter
`ineligibility under § 101.
`AFFIRMED
`COSTS
`
`No costs.
`
`