BPAI analyzes § 101 under both Machine-or-Transformation and Benson (Ex parte Caccavale)

Takeaway: In the latest BPAI decision to consider a § 101 rejection, the BPAI analyzed method claims using the Machine-or-Transformation test and then analyzed under the "abstract idea" test. The abstract idea analysis used "one of the [Supreme] Court’s precedential tools (i.e., the case of Gottschalk v. Benson)." The claims failed the machine prong despite the recitation of a "distributed processing unit" since the claims didn't explicitly tie the claimed computation to the unit. The "mere statistical analysis computations" of the claims did not satisfy the transformation prong. Finally, "Appellants’ computational process claim is comparable with the algorithm to convert binary-coded decimal numerals into pure binary code in Benson, in that Appellants seek to patent an idea." The Board then affirmed the § 101 under Benson.

Details: Representative claim 8 recited:

8. In a data processing system including distributed processing units, a method of analysis of performance of the data processing system, said method comprising:
each of the distributed processing units accumulating performance parameters including response time measurements and workload across intervals of time,
said each of the distributed processing units storing the performance parameters accumulated by said each of the distributed processing units in an industry standard database in said each of the distributed processing units; and
accessing the industry standard databases over the data processing system to retrieve the performance parameters accumulated by the distributed processing units, and
determining a measure of performance of the data processing system from the retrieved performance parameters;
wherein the industry standard database is the Windows Management Instrumentation database,
and the method includes said each distributed processing unit using an operating system to store the performance parameters accumulated by said each of the distributed processing units in the Windows Management Instrumentation database;
wherein the measure of performance of the data processing system is a measure of metric entropy of the data processing system, and the measure of metric entropy of the data processing system is computed from the performance parameters retrieved from the industry standard database by
computing an average response time over the distributed processing units,
computing a histogram of the average response time over the distributed processing units, and
computing the measure of metric entropy of the data processing system from the histogram.

My two cents: Good to know what the Board is thinking in terms of abstract idea. But it's not clear whether abstract idea analyis is *required*. The Board said: 

However, our guidance from the Supreme Court in Bilski v. Kappos, cited above, states that the machine-or-transformation test is not the endpoint for our inquiry under 35 U.S.C. § 101. We thus analyze claim 8 under one of the Court’s precedential tools (i.e., the case of Gottschalk v. Benson)

Was the Board's abstract idea analysis required, or just dicta? Plenty of practitioners think that MoT is a safe harbor. Yet with the Supreme Court's focus on abstract-ideas-are-not-patentable-subject-matter, I'm worried that MoT is not a safe harbor. We won't know until we get a BPAI decision that finds MoT = PASS and Abstract Idea = FAIL. [Unless the Federal Circuit addresses this question first.]