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

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In the mid-1990s, petitioner Worlds invented computer software with protocols that allowed an increased number of players to access a_ threedimensional virtual world simultaneously, and provided customizable settings to adapt to each user’s computer hardware capabilities. On a motion for summary judgment under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the district court concluded that the patented claims were directed to the abstract idea of filtering. Further, while the movant submitted no evidence to support a finding in its favor, the district court found that the claims recited only well-known, routine, and conventional features and held the claims ineligible. The questions presented are as follows: 1. What is the appropriate standard for determining whether a patent claim is “directed to” a patent-ineligible concept under step one of the Court’s two-step framework for determining whether an invention is eligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. § 101? 2. Whether a movant seeking a ruling of patentineligibility under Section 101 as a matter of law can prevail on step two where the movant submits no evidence of what was well-known, routine, and conventional in the industry as of the date of invention? (i)