What is the appropriate standard for determining whether a patent claim is 'directed to' a patent-ineligible concept under step 1 of the Court's two-step framework for determining whether an invention is eligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C § 101?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The Sliding Windows patents cover a novel data structure—a “background image of a_ stationary map”—that allows users to navigate large images on a smartphone by moving the phone itself. This data structure is required by the patents’ claims, emphasized as the key to the invention throughout the patents’ specifications, and was the explicit basis on which the PTAB relied to distinguish the patents over prior art. In ruling that the patents were invalid under 35 U.S.C § 101 for claiming an abstract idea, however, the court below did not consider this claimed data structure, excluded this express requirement from the patent claims from the _ court’s characterization of what the claims were “directed to,” and refused to consider the fact that because this claim limitation distinguished prior art, the Sliding Windows patents did not risk preemption of any abstract idea. The questions presented are: What is the appropriate standard for determining whether a patent claim is “directed to” a patent-ineligible concept under step 1 of the Court’s two-step framework for determining whether an invention is eligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C § 101? Whether, and to what extent, a court may ignore the “claimed advance” that distinguishes a patented invention over the prior art in its determination of what a claim is directed to under step 1 of the Court’s two step framework for determining patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101? ii Whether, and to what extent, a court may consider whether a patent claim provides sufficient disclosure regarding how the claimed invention may be made or used to determine whether a patent claim is eligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. § 101, or whether that improperly conflates § 101 and § 112? Whether preemption is a consideration that the lower courts must consider in determining whether a claimed invention is directed to patent-eligible subject matter under Section 101, or whether it can be properly ignored if not raised by the patentchallenger?