Whether the Federal Circuit improperly expanded § 101's narrow implicit exceptions by failing to properly assess Chamberlain's claims 'as a whole', where the claims recite an improvement to a machine and leave ample room for other inventors to apply any underlying abstract principles in different ways

QUESTION PRESENTED This Court has held that any machine or process is eligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, subject only to narrow exceptions where the patent seeks to monopolize an abstract idea or law of nature. This Court has further held repeatedly that a court must make that determination by evaluating the claims “as a whole.” The Federal Circuit, however, routinely declares inventions ineligible for patent protection by dissecting the patent’s claim into purportedly new versus old elements, and then isolating just the new ones for analysis. It applied that approach here to strip The Chamberlain Group’s novel garage door opener of patent protection. The question presented is: Whether the Federal Circuit improperly expanded § 101’s narrow implicit exceptions by failing to properly assess Chamberlain’s claims “as a whole,” where the claims recite an improvement to a machine and leave ample room for other inventors to apply any underlying abstract principles in different ways.