Search Team

Search by Last Name

Berkheimer v. HP

Representative Claim

  1. A method of archiving an item comprising in a computer processing system:

presenting the item to a parser;

parsing the item into a plurality of multi-part object structures wherein portions of the structures have searchable information tags associated therewith;

evaluating the object structures in accordance with object structures previously stored in an archive;

presenting an evaluated object structure for manual reconciliation at least where there is a predetermined variance between the object and at least one of a predetermined standard and a user defined rule.

  1. The method as in claim 1 which includes storing a reconciled object structure in the archive without substantial redundancy.
  2. The method as in claim 4 which includes selectively editing an object structure, linked to other structures to thereby effect a one-to-many change in a plurality of archived items.
  3. The method as in clam 5which includes compiling an item to be output from the archive, wherein at least one object-type structure of the item has been edited during the one-to-many change and wherein the compiled item includes a plurality of linked object-type structures converted into a predetermined output file formal.
  4. The method as in claim 6 which includes compiling a plurality of items wherein the at least one object-type structure had been linked in the archive to members of the plurality.


Appeal from U.S. Dist. Court’s (NDIL) summary judgement holding claims as patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and invalid for indefiniteness.

Abstract Idea: Yes

These claims are similar to claims we held directed to an abstract idea in prior cases. . . . Here, the specification explains that the parser “determines and extracts components of the standardized document or item representation” and reassembles the components “into composite output files.” ‘713 patent at 3:61-4:17. Even though the parser separates the documents or items into smaller components than the claims determined to be abstract in Content Extraction and TLI, the concept is the same. The parsing and comparing of claims 1-3 and 9 are similar to the collecting and recognizing of Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347, and the classifying in an organized manner of TLI, 823 F.3d at 613. Claim 4 adds the abstract concept of storing, and claims 5-7 add the abstract concept of editing.

Something More: Yes/No

Mr. Berkheimer argues that claim 1 recites an improvement to computer functionality and digital asset management systems. Mr. Berkheimer, however, admitted that parsers and the functions they perform existed for years before his patent. J.A. 1106. These conventional limitations of claim 1, combined with limitations of analyzing and comparing data and reconciling differences between the data, “fail to transform th[e] abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 1357. The limitations amount to no more than performing the abstract idea of parsing and comparing data with conventional computer components. Because claims 1-3 and 9 do not capture the purportedly inventive concepts, we hold that claims 1-3 and 9 are ineligible.

Claims 4-7, in contrast, contain limitations directed to the arguably unconventional inventive concept described in the specification. Claim 4 recites “storing a reconciled object structure in the archive without substantial redundancy.” . . . These claims recite a specific method of archiving that, according to the specification, provides benefits that improve computer functionality.

We do not decide today that claims 4-7 are patent eligible under § 101. We only decide that on this record summary judgment was improper, given the fact questions created by the specification’s disclosure.