MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. (“BASCOM”) brings this action against Defendants AT & T Mobility LLC and AT & T Corp. (collectively, “AT & T”)
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
The patent-in-suit, is directed toward a method and system for filtering Internet content in a manner that is customizable for each Internet user. '606 Patent at 1:7-11. Filtering Internet content may be necessary in both the employment and household settings, as companies may wish to restrict their employees’ access to certain websites, and parents may wish to do the same for their children. See id. at 1:30-35.
According to the “Background of the Invention,” initial attempts to filter Internet content were implemented directly on the personal computer (“PC”), which simply stored a database of allowed or disallowed websites (“the single-user configuration”). Id.- at ■ 1:58-59, Fig. 8. Several problems arose with the single-user configuration, including the prospect that a determined and tech-sawy employee or teenager might thwart or modify the filtering function. Id. at 2:1-3. It could also be time-consuming and costly to install a filter on every PC; different PCs may require modified software; and the database that stores the allowed and disallowed websites must be frequently updated with Internet downloads or disk updates to track changes in the content of Internet sites. Id. at 2:3-12.
Prior to the filing of the '606 Patent, some ISPs used a “server-based configuration” in which the filtering function is performed at the site of the remote server. Id. at 2:36-39. However, like the single-user configuration and local server-based configuration, the remote server employs a single set of filtering criteria for all users, and as a result, suffers from the same one-size-does-TOoi-fit-all complications. Id. at 2:42-45.
PATENT-IN-SUIT
The '606 Patent claims an invention designed to overcome the disadvantages in the single-user, local server-based, and server-based configurations by providing individualized, customizable filtering and data storage on the ISP server. Id. at 2:52-55. The system claimed requires no special software on the PC or LAN, works with any hardware, operating system, or LAN, allows users to select a variety of filtering schemes and elements, and remains difficult to tamper with or circumvent. Id. at 2:56-65.
In the claimed invention, an ISP server executes or incorporates software with filtering schemes, and accesses databases to obtain filtering elements required by the filtering scheme. Id. at 2:66-3:3, 7:3-10. The ISP server then matches individual end-user accounts to the filtering scheme and filtering elements associated with that account, which may, for example, include an exclusive-list filtering scheme and a database of restricted websites, or alternatively, a word or phrase screening filter and database of restricted words or phrases. Id. at 3:3-11, 7:3-77, 7:31-34, 7:60-67. The preferred embodiment of the claimed invention covers an ISP server with end-user databases holding additional sets of filtering elements to further customize the filtering scheme. Id. at 3:11-15. In the Court’s view, Claims 1 and 22 are representative:
1. A content filtering system for filtering content retrieved from an Internetcomputer network; by individual controlled access network accounts, said filtering system comprising:
a local client computer generating network access requests for said individual controlled access network accounts;
at least one filtering scheme;
a plurality of sets of logical filtering elements; and
a remote ISP server coupled to said client computer and said Internet computer network, said ISP server associating each said network account to at least one filtering scheme and at least one set of filtering elements, said ISP server further receiving said network access requests from said client computer and executing said associated filtering scheme utilizing said associated set of logical filtering elements.
22. An ISP. server for filtering content forwarded to controlled access network account generating network access requests at a remote client computer, each network access request including a destination address field, said ISP server comprising:
a master inclusive-list of allowed sites;
a plurality of sets of exclusive-lists of excluded sites, each controlled access network account associated with at least one- set of said plurality of exclusive-lists of excluded sites; and
a filtering scheme, said filtering scheme allowing said network access request if said destination address exists on. said master inclusive-list but not on said at least one associated exclusive-list, whereby said controlled access accounts may be uniquely associated with one or more sets of excluded sites.
LEGAL BACKGROUND
The Patent Act addresses what inventions are patentable:
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.
The Supreme Court “has long held that this provision contains an important implicit exception ... ‘laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas’ are not patentable.” Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., — U.S.-,
In Gottschalk v. Benson, the Supreme Court considered the patentability of a method for programming a general-purpose computer to convert binary-coded decimal (BCD) numerals into pure binary numerals.
In Parker v. Flook, the Court held unpatentable a method for updating alarm limits that claimed a mathematical formula for calculating the updated alarm limit in processes involving the catalytic conversion of hydrocarbons.
In Diamond v. Diehr, the Court addressed the patentability of a process that used a mold to convert raw, synthetic rubber into cured products.
First, the Court described its holdings in Benson and Flook as mere applications of the longstanding principle that an abstract idea is not patentable simply because the invention involves a computer. Id. at 186,
The Court again addressed the patentability of abstract ideas in Bilski v. Kappos, where the patent applicants claimed a computerized procedure for hedging against- price changes in- the energy market.
Most recently, in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International et al., the Court held that the claims at issue were directed to the abstract idea of intermediated settlement, and that merely requiring implementation of that abstract idea by a generic computer did not transform it into a patent-eligible invention. — U.S.-,
Before analyzing the patent-in-suit, the Court explained that its decisions refusing patentability for abstract ideas are rooted in concerns about preemption. Id. at 2354. In other words, the Court is concerned that a claim directed toward an abstract idea could preempt that approach in all fields, and effectively create a monopoly over the abstract idea. Id. (citing Bilski,
The Court reintroduced the two-step process for determining the subject-matter eligibility of a patent that incorporates an abstract idea. Id. at 2355 (citing Mayo,
The Court illustrated Step One by analogizing the patent-in-suit to the invalidated patent in Bilski, finding the claimed method of intermediary settlement was also directed toward a fundamental, long prevalent economic practice. Id. at 2356 (citing Bilski,
The Court proceeded to Step Two to determine whether the claims contained an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea of intermediated settle
A “patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implemen[t]’ an abstract idea ‘on ... a computer,’ ” and as such, does not confer patent eligibility. Alice,
Having analyzed the representative claim in the intermediary settlement patent, the Court held that its limitations did no more than instruct a practitioner to implement the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Id. at 2359. The Court analyzed the claim elements separately and determined that the function performed by the computer at each step of the process was purely conventional, and the functions were well-understood, routine, and previously known to the industry. Id. The Court noted that the method claims did not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, nor did they improve any other technology or technical claim. Id.
Here, citing Alice and other cases, AT & T argues that the claims of the '606 Patent are (1) directed to the abstract idea of filtering Internet content, and (2) the patent lacks any additional feature beyond generic computer elements.
LEGAL STANDARD
Invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is a question of law that can be addressed at the pleading stage of litigation. See Content Extraction,
An issued patent is entitled to a presumption of validity, and a party arguing that a patent claims ineligible subject matter under § 101 must prove as much by clear and convincing evidence.
I. Step One: The claims of the '606 Patent are directed toward the abstract idea of filtering Internet content.
A. Arguments of the Parties
AT & T argues that the claims are directed to the abstract idea of “filtering content,” “filtering Internet 'content,” or “determining who gets to see what,” which is a well-known “method of organizing human activity,” analogous to hedging and intermediated settlement. Dkt. No. 28 at 6 (citing Alice,
AT & T also notes that filtering Internet content was so well-known that it was The subject of Congressional action more than a year before the filing of the '606 Patent, when Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and explained that United States policy was to encourage “development of technologies which maximize user control over what- information is - received,” and “to remove disincentives for the development and utilizatiqn of blocking and filtering technologies that empower parents to restrict their children’s access to objectionable and inappropriate online material.” Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub.L. No. 89-110, 110 Stat. 56 (enacted Feb. 8, 1996, codified 47 U.S.C. § 230(b)-(c)) (abolishing liability for ISPs that publish' content through filters). The Supreme Court has repeatedly denied patent eligibility to ideas that are “long prevalent” and well-known, and AT & T argues that filtering Internet content is well-known and longstanding within the field of Internet technology. Dkt. No. 23 at 6-7; Hr’g Tr. at 12:9-12.
BASCOM relies on the Federal Circuit’s recent decision in DDR Holdings v. Hotels.com, L.P. to argue that the claims of the '606 Patent address a problem arising in the realm of computer networks, and provide a solution expressly rooted, in computer technology, and therefore are not directed toward an abstract idea. See DDR Holdings v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
BASCOM also criticizes AT & T’s reliance on Judge Mayer’s concurrence in I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL Inc., an unpublished decision, in which Judge Mayer concluded that claims for content-based and collaborative-based Internet filtering were unpatenable because they were “merely an Internet iteration of the basic concept of combining content and collaborative data.” Dkt. No. 28 at 15-16;
Finally, BASCOM argues that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 actually supports its position because Congress sought to “encourage the development of Internet filtering technologies,” confirming that Internet filtering is a particular technological field, improved by the claims of the '606 Patent. Dkt. No. 29 at 17 (citing Alice,
B. Analysis
The Court finds that the claims of the '606 Patent are directed toward the abstract idea of filtering Internet content.
The Court begins- by “examining] the claims because claims are the definition of what a patent is intended to cover.” Ultramercial,
Claim 1 recites elements for filtering Internet content, including: (1) a local client computer that generates network access requests for individual network accounts; (2) at least one filtering scheme; (3) sets of filtering elements; and (4) a remote ISP server, connected to the client computer, that associates each network account to at least one filtering scheme and filtering elements, and executes the filtering scheme after receiving network access requests from the client computer. '606 Patent at 6:62-7:10.
Claim 22 recites elements for an ISP server that filters Internet content, including (1) a list of allowed websites; (2) lists of excluded websites associated with network accounts; and (3) a filtering scheme that allows access to a web address if the address is on the list'of allowed websites and on the list of excluded websites. Id. at 8:63-9:11.
A review of these claims makes it clear that the invention of the '606 Patent is directed toward the abstract idea of filtering content, a long-standing, well-known method of organizing human activity. See Alice, 134 S.CL at 2356; Bilski,
In Accenture, the Federal Circuit considered the validity of a patent claiming “a computer program ... for handling insurance-related tasks,” with software components for “generating and organizing insurance-related tasks.”
The Federal Circuit examined the system claims, which the district court held were directed to the abstract idea of “organizing data rather than to specific devices or systems.” Id. at 1344. On appeal, Accenture argued that the specification demonstrated that the patent was an advance in computer software, and did not simply claim an abstract idea. Id. However, the Federal Circuit found that the claims at issue were directed toward the abstract idea of “generating tasks [based on] rules ... to be completed upon the occurrence of an event.” Id. at 1344 (citation omitted). The court proceeded to Step Two, and found only “generalized software components arranged to implement an abstract concept on a computer,” which were insufficient to confer patentable subject matter eligibility. Id. at 1344-35.
In Ultramercial, decided after Accenture and Alice, the Federal Circuit analyzed claims directed to a method for distributing copyrighted media products over the Internet, by which an advertiser would pay for a customer to receive a copyrighted media product without charge, in exchange for the customer viewing an advertisement.
In DDR Holdings, the Federal Circuit held that claims covering “systems and methods of generating a composite web page that combines certain visual elements of a ‘host’ website with content of a third-party merchant” passed muster under § 101.
Applying any of the characterizations, the Federal Circuit found that Step Two of the Alice framework was met, because the claims did “not merely recite the performance of some business practice known from the pre-Internet world along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet,” but instead, “the claimed solution [was] necessarily rooted in computer technology to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks.” Id. Importantly, the court noted that its decision in Ultramercial demonstrated that “not all claims purporting to address Internet-centric challenges are eligible for patent,” but found the claims at issue were distinguishable because they “[did] not broadly and generically claim ‘use of the Internet’ to perform an abstract business practice (with insignificant added activity),” and the claims “speciffied] how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result ... that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink.” Id. at ,1258. In other words, “the limitations of the ... asserted claims ... taken together as an ordered combination ... recite[d] an invention that [was] not merely the routine or conventional use of the Internet.” Id. at 1259.
Finally, in Content Extraction, the Federal Circuit considered claims reciting a “method of 1) extracting data from hard copy documents using an automated digitizing unit such as a scanner, 2) recognizing, specific information form the extracted data, and 3) storing that information in a memory,” which could be carried out by software on an ATM that “recognizes information on a scanned check, such as the check’s amount, and populates certain data fields with that information in a computer’s memory.”
Turning to this case, a review of Claims 1 and 22 make it clear that they are directed toward the abstract idea of filtering content. See '606' Patent at 6:62-63 (“A content filtering system for filtering content retrieved from an Internet computer network...8:63 (“Ah ISP server for filtering content..,..”). Although the claims clearly apply to Internet content, content provided on the Internet is not fundamentally different from content observed, read, and interacted with through other mediums like books, magazines, television, or movies, all of which have had to grapple with filtering complications similar to those addressed by the claims of the '606 Patent.
Although BASCOM relies heavily on the Federal Circuit’s decision in DDR Holdings, it should be noted that the Federal Circuit did not decide in DDR Holdings whether the composite web page at issue was directed toward an abstract idea. See DDR Holdings,
Finally, despite BASCOM’s effort to distinguish and minimize Judge Mayer’s concurrence in HP Engine, that concurrence is quite relevant to this case and this Court finds it highly persuasive. I/P Engine brought claims against AOL, Google, and other companies for infringement of patents directed to a method for filtering Internet search results that “utilize[d] both content-based and collaborative filtering.”
Judge Mayer found that the claims “simply describe[d] the well-known and widely applied concept that it is helpful to have both content-based and collaborative information about a specific area of interest.” Id. As an illustration, he posited a person planning a visit to London, who might consult a guidebook that would provide information about specific museums in London (content data), as well as gather advice from other people about their impressions of these museums (collaborative data). Id. Thus, according to Judge Mayer, I/P Engine’s claimed system was nothing more than an Internet, computer-implemented iteration of the basic concept of combining content and collaborative data. Id. Finally, Judge Mayer noted that the scope of the claimed invention was “staggering” because it would potentially cover a significant portion of all online advertising. Id. Thus, in Judge Mayer’s view, the vast reach of the claims was disproportionate to their “minimal technological disclosure.” Id.
Similar to the -claims at issue in I/P, the representative claims of the '606 Patent are no more than an Internet iteration of the basic concept of filtering' content. Consider as a non-Internet analog parents who meticulously place certain magazines on the coffee table, accessible to their young children, while leaving others on the nightstand or in the closet for adult eyes only. Further, consider á high school English teacher, who must balance the individual maturity of each of her students and the cumbersome prospect of assigning different books to different students, against censoring books for the class as a whole. Finally, consider that movie theaters filter films based on ratings and restrict access based on age. The Court can conceive of multiple non-Internet analogs to the claims of the '606 Patent, and, as did Judge Mayer in I/P, the Court finds that the claims of the '606 Patent are, indeed, directed toward the abstract idea of filtering content, a well-known method of organizing human activity.
II, Step Two; The recited claims fail to recite an “inventive concept” that transforms the abstract idea of filtering Internet content into a patent-eligible invention.
A. Arguments of the Parties
AT & T argues that the claims contain no additional limitations that can supply an
AT & T identifies each of the elements in Claim 1 — (1) local client computer, (2) filtering scheme, (3) filtering elements, and a(4) remote ISP server. '606 Patent at 6:62-7:10. According to AT & T, the local client computer and ISP server are merely generic computers performing generic activities, and the specification shows they were known in the prior art. See id. at 1:58-67, 2:62-64, 4:14-15, 4:1-4. AT & T also contends that the filtering scheme is “any type of code” and the filtering elements are just “database entries,” i.e., generic software to implement the abstract idea of filtering Internet content. Dkt. No. 23 at 2 (citing '606 Patent at 4:15, 3:1-8). AT & T argues that Alice and Accenture have made it clear that an inventive concept cannot be supplied by the mere arrangement of generalized software components to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See Accenture,
Furthermore, AT & T contends that Claim 1 cannot be patent eligible after Alice because it merely recites a “filtering scheme utilizing logical filtering elements” and instructs a practitioner to “execute it,” and in Alice, the Supreme Court clarified that simply seizing on an abstract idea and instructing one to “apply it” does not transform the idea into an eligible invention. See Alice,
Finally, addressing the preemption concerns that undergird Step Two, AT & T notes that Claim 1 could potentially preempt using a single filtering scheme for all network accounts because the claim recites “at least one filtering scheme.” Hr’g Tr. at 18:15-22 (citing '606 Patent at 7:1-10).
AT & T makes many of the same arguments with respect to Claim 22, which recites elements for a content-filtering ISP server, including (1) a master-inclusive list, (2) exclusive-lists of excluded sites, and (3) a filtering scheme. '606 Patent at 8:63-7:11. Again, AT & T contends that the specification of the '606 Patent teaches that these elements were well-known and are generic. Id. at 1:44-50 (describing in the “Background of the Invention” the availability of exclusive filtering and inclusive filtering in the prior art). AT & T rejects BASCOM’s attempt to characterize hybridized filtering schemes as inventive, noting that the specification states that “it will be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the filtering scheme can be any of a number of known-schemes, or hybrids thereof.” Id. at 4:27-30 (emphasis added).
BASCOM argues that AT & T fails to look at the ordered combination of elements, and instead merely picks out individual elements and challenges them as non-inventive. PI. Resp. Br. at 20; Hr’g Tr. at 36:12-16. According to BASCOM, the '606 Patent is an advance over prior art because it provides content-filter functionality that can vary based on which end-user at a client computer is attempting to access the Internet, which is implemented by associating each end-user’s individual controlled access network account with at least one filtering scheme and at least one set of filtering elements, ¿a, code that determines whether to allow access to the requested Internet content. See '606 Patent at 3:3-11; 4:66-5:3. In short, BAS-COM argues that the inventive concept is the special ISP server that receives requests for Internet content, which the ISP
B. Analysis
The Court finds that AT & T has met its burden of showing that the claims of the '606 Patent fail to recite inventive features that warrant patent protection. The first inquiry is whether the Federal Circuit’s holding and reasoning in DDR Holdings means BASCOM’s claims are rooted in the Internet and overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of the Internet. See also Trading Technologies Int’l, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., No. 05-CV-4811,
The Federal Circuit expressly stated in DDR Holdings that “not all claims purporting to address Internet-centric challenges are eligible for patents.”
In DDR Holdings, the court found the claims at issue stood apart because “they [did] not merely recite the performance of some business practice known from the pre-Internet world along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet,” but rather “the claimed solution [was] necessarily rooted in computer technology to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks.” Id. In particular, the claims addressed the problem of retaining website visitors that, if adhering to the routine, conventional functioning of Internet hyperlink protocol, would be instantly transported away from a host’s website after clicking on an advertisement and activating a hyperlink. Id.
The majority rejected the dissent’s argument that the “store within a store” concept, such as a “warehouse store that contains a kiosk for selling a third-party partner’s cruise vacation packages,” was the pre-Internet analog of the asserted claims. Id. at 1258. While the concept may have been well-known by the relevant timeframe, the court found that the near-instantaneous transport between web pages made possible by the Internet is a problem that is absent in the “brick and mortar” context. Id. The court stated that it was the “challenge of retaining control over the attention of the customer in the context of the Internet” that the patent’s claim addressed. Id.
DDR Holdings distinguished the claims in Ultramercial as “broadly and generically claimfing] ‘use of the Internet’ to perform an abstract business practice” with
Here, the Court looks at the “elements of each claim both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’ to determine whether the additional elements [beyond those that recite the abstract idea of filtering content] ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Alice,
Additionally, considered in combination, the local client computer generates network access requests that are sent to the remote ISP server, which executes the filtering software. Id. at 6:65-7:10 Filtering software, apparently composed of filtering schemes and filtering elements, was well-known in the prior art. See id. at 1:58-59, 2:36-39 (“Initial attempts at Internet content control implemented the filter function on the local (client) ¡machine.... [additionally, some service providers ... have used a third ‘server-based’ configuration where the filtering function is performed at the remote server site.”); id. at 1:44-48 (explaining .that the “filtering schemes” recited were known in the prior art).
BASCOM argues that the claims contain the- limitation of filtering content by utilizing a specialized ISP server. AT & T replies that this is merely an attempt to claim the configuration of the network, and in any event, claiming a network is not inventive. See, e.g., buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,
AT & T notes that' the elements of the claims lack structure because they do not
Nor are “controlled access network accounts” or the “customizable” features of the claims sufficiently inventive. Individual filtering on the Internet was. a recognized need, and the recitation of “controlled access network accounts” in many of the claims is synonymous with a generic computer. See id. at 1:30-31 (“Many entities have found a need to block access to some web sites for certain end-users.”), 1:44-48 (“Several mechanisms for filtering are available: exclusive filtering ... inclusive filtering ... and word-screening or phrase-screening____”), 7:4-6 (“a remote ISP server coupled to said client computer and said Internet computer network, said ISP server associating each said network account to at least one filtering scheme.... ” (emphasis added)); see OpenTV, Inc. v. Netflix, Inc.,
The individual elements and ordered combination of elements in Claim 22 similarly recite generic computer components, and lack an inventive concept. See id. at 9:1-12 (reciting a “master-inclusive list of allowed sites,” “exclusive-lists of excluded sites” associated with each “controlled access network account,” and “a filtering scheme” that allows a “network access request” if the web address exists on the “master inclusive list but not on ... [the] exclusive list”).
The Court finds that the claims of the '606 Patent, considered individually, or as an ordered combination, are no more than routine additidnal steps involving generic computer components and the Internet, which interact in well-known ways to accomplish the abstract idea of filtering Internet content. See Ultramercial,
CONCLUSION
The Court finds that, under the two-step Alice framework, the claims of the '606 Patent are directed toward the abstract idea of filtering content on the Internet, and the claims do not recite a sufficiently inventive concept to make them much more than an attempt "to monopolize the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), and DISMISSES Plaintiffs claims with prejudice. The Court will enter a separate judgment dismissing the case.
SO ORDERED.
Notes
. BASCOM initially sued AT & T Inc. as well, but then dismissed AT & T Inc. on January 15, 2015 [Docket Entry # 19],
. Claims 1, 14, 18, 22, and 24 are the independent claims of the '606 Patent, and therefore, are most frequently discussed by the parties. AT & T argues that Claim 1 is representative for puiposes of the patentable subject matter analysis. BASCOM disagrees, and argues that AT & T has the burden to invalidate each independent and dependent claim of the '606 Patent. March 26, 2015 Hr'g Tr. at 31:8-11. In its briefing, Plaintiff presented Claims 1 and 22 as instructive. Id. at 18:9-14. The Court finds that, for the purposes of this § 101 invalidity challenge, Claim 1 is representative of the "Individually Customizable Filtering Claims” and Claim 22 is representative of the "Filtering Scheme Structure Claims.” PI. Resp. Br. at 4-5 (describing Claims 1-6, 18, 24 and 25 as the "Individually Customizable Filtering Claims” and Claims 7-17, 19-23 as the "Filtering Scheme Structure Claims”); see Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells. Fargo Bank, Nat. Assn,
. In Ultramercial, Judge Mayer wrote in a concurrence that "no presumption of eligibility should attach when assessing whether claims meet the demands of section 101" because "the PTO has for many years applied an insufficiently rigorous subject matter eligibility standard that was premised on a misunderstanding of the legislative history of the Patent Act.”
. The obvious flaw in this analogy is that a mouse trap would pass muster under Step Two because it adds the inventive concepts of being cheap, relatively clean, and transportable. In contrast, notwithstanding any obviousness challenge, a hypothetical invention that recited a method for catching mice comprising laying cheese on the floor, observing said cheese at all times, and grabbing the mouse that nibbles on said cheese, would probably fail Step Two of the Alice framework because it fails to add an "inventive concept” to the abstract idea of catching mice. In other words, the potential preemptive scope of the claims would substantially outweigh the invention's contribution to the field of rodent control.
. As AT & T notes in its Reply, many of BASCOM’s arguments regarding Step One of the Alice analysis, i.e., whether filtering Internet content is an abstract idea, are more properly directed to Step Two of the analysis, i.e., whether the invention sufficiently adds an "inventive concept” to the abstract idea of filtering Internet content. Therefore, the Court addresses many of these arguments in Step Two. •
. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 supports the Court’s conclusion that the claims of the '606 Patent are directed toward the abstract idea of filtering content. The statute stated that the policy of the United States was "to remove disincentives for the development and utilization of blocking and filtering technologies____" Telecommunications Act of 1996, PL 104-104, February 8, 1996, 110 Stat 56. That is, Congress merely sought to incentivize the application of content filtering to online material.