Because “the asserted grounds of unpatentability for [the disputed] claim  in this case [were] based on prior art, not indefiniteness[,]” the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) upheld the validity of a claim over petitioner’s prior art, despite the PTAB knowing that a district court had found the claim indefinite and that, because of that indefiniteness, the petitioner could not point to anticipatory structure in the prior art reference.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) determination of unpatentability for claims covering new rules for a card game. The panel found the claims patent-ineligible under the Mayo two-step analysis for 35 U.S.C. § 101. First, they were directed to an abstract idea; second, they lacked an inventive concept sufficient to bridge the gap between abstract idea and invention.