Federal Circuit disposition — 24-2311

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
IN RE: NOAH P. HEALY,
Appellant
______________________
2024-2311
______________________
Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 15/171,621.
______________________
Decided: August 7, 2025
______________________
NOAH P. HEALY, Charlottesville, VA, pro se.
OMAR FAROOQ AMIN, Office of the Solicitor, United
States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, for
appellee Coke Morgan Stewart. Also represented by
KAKOLI CAPRIHAN, AMY J. NELSON.
______________________
Before MOORE, Chief Judge, CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judge,
and SCARSI, District Judge.1
1 Honorable Mark C. Scarsi, District Judge, United
States District Court for the Central District of California,
sitting by designation.
Case: 24-2311 Document: 31 Page: 1 Filed: 08/07/2025

-- 1 of 11 --

IN RE: HEALY 2
PER CURIAM.
Noah P. Healy appeals a decision of the Patent Trial
and Appeal Board sustaining the examiner’s rejection of all
pending claims of U.S. Patent Application No. 15/171,621
as patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Ex parte Noah
P. Healy, No. 2023-002702, 2024 WL 3440209 (P.T.A.B.
July 16, 2024) (“Decision”). We affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
Mr. Healy is the named inventor on the ’621 applica-
tion, entitled “System and Method of Price Discovery for
Exchange Market.” J.A. 48. The ’621 application is di-
rected to systems and methods “for discovering and pub-
lishing clearing prices of commodities within exchange
markets.” J.A. 80; see also J.A. 81–82 (“method for operat-
ing a commodity market through a coordinate discovery
market”). The application explains that “exchange mar-
kets traditionally work by constantly maintaining a bal-
ance between supply and demand” by changing the price of
commodities. J.A. 49 ¶ 4. The application also states that
conventional methods and systems for operating exchange
markets “are roughly nine centuries old,” “would be recog-
nizable to early Renaissance Venetians,” and “suffer from
well-known flaws, such as manipulative practices, money
laundering, and crash instability.” J.A. 48 ¶ 3.
The ’621 application purports to overcome these draw-
backs of conventional exchange markets, as well as addi-
tional challenges posed by technological advances, by
proposing “a different logical construct for an exchange
market, which dictates a different set of rules for interac-
tion of the relevant participants.” J.A. 48 ¶ 2. The claimed
invention purportedly “link[s] a positive sum forecasting
market to a negative sum clearing house in a mutually neg-
ative reinforcement control loop” by “providing a temporal
sequence of clearing prices and accepting future price spec-
ulation from speculators along with an investment,” com-
bining the investments “into a bett[o]r pool,” and paying
Case: 24-2311 Document: 31 Page: 2 Filed: 08/07/2025

-- 2 of 11 --

IN RE: HEALY 3
“the speculators who most correctly predicted the future
prices” using “a pari-mutuel payout.” J.A. 50 ¶ 7. This
method separates speculation from trading “so that specu-
lator incentives can be inverted to align with producers and
consumers” while still allowing producers and consumers
“to utilize the pricing information provided by speculators
when determining how much of a commodity to buy or sell.”
Id. ¶ 8.
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. . . . A system for discovering and publishing
clearing prices of commodities within exchange
markets, the system comprising:
an intermediary market server configured
to receive, aggregate, and publish pricing
information to and from participants,
which, using a telecommunication net-
work, simultaneously publishes prices and
predictions on clearing prices for a plural-
ity of commodities to at least one speculator
device associated with a speculator com-
prising a graphical user interface, at least
one producer device associated with a pro-
ducer of at least one commodity comprising
a graphical user interface, and at least one
consumer device associated with a con-
sumer of at least one commodity compris-
ing a graphical user interface;
wherein the at least one speculator device,
via the graphical user interface, exchanges
data with the intermediary market server
related to purchasing interests in at least
one commodity of the plurality of commod-
ities according to a different logical con-
struct that dictates a different set of rules
for interaction of relevant participants by
participant type, wherein speculators do
Case: 24-2311 Document: 31 Page: 3 Filed: 08/07/2025

-- 3 of 11 --

IN RE: HEALY 4
not directly perform any transactions with
producers or consumers and do not pur-
chase or handle any commodities, and in-
stead provide predictions on clearing prices
of the plurality of commodities backed by a
financial investment placed with the inter-
mediary market server, wherein the inter-
mediary market server allocates returns on
investments based on information meas-
urement and provides a means to directly
state a degree of influence of each partici-
pant in the exchange markets, removing
price and temporal priority to allow sepa-
ration of speculation from trading so that
speculator incentives are inverted to align
with producers and consumers;
wherein the at least one producer device,
via the graphical user interface, exchanges
data with the intermediary market server
related to selling the at least one commod-
ity;
wherein the at least one consumer device,
via the graphical user interface, exchanges
data with the intermediary market server
related to buying the at least one commod-
ity;
a clearing house module configured to re-
ceive offers of sale, offers to buy, produce
contracts for received offers, handle mone-
tary payments related to transactions be-
tween producers and consumers, and
provide a volume seeking price discovery in
the exchange markets and coordination on
a non-zero sum basis in which all partici-
pants are rewarded for realizing mutual
Case: 24-2311 Document: 31 Page: 4 Filed: 08/07/2025

-- 4 of 11 --

IN RE: HEALY 5
gains by making mutually consistent deci-
sions;
wherein, in response to transactions being
processed by the intermediary market
server between producers and consumers
at a clearing price, the system tracks inter-
actions of pluralities of different partici-
pants at different times and measures
information content of actions taken in
roles of producer, consumer, and specula-
tor, providing feedback as a four party com-
modities market operates, and the system
organizes information, measurements,
presentation, and execution, transforming
generated matched pairs of producers and
consumers creating commodities transac-
tions, providing rewards payments to spec-
ulators based on accuracy of prediction for
clearing prices of the commodities transac-
tions that positively contribute to imple-
ment a positive sum commodity market,
and the speculator is rewarded from an in-
vestment pool based on a level of accuracy
and a calculation of a percentage of change
from influence provided by each speculator
prediction and investment to move a cur-
rent price to an actual clearing price ac-
cording to a pari-mutuel betting schema
with a positive sum pari-mutuel infor-
mation gathering provided by the system,
wherein the at least one speculator device,
and each contributing speculator, are paid
a fraction of impact that each investment of
the speculator or contributing speculator
had on moving a current market price to-
ward the actual clearing price of commodi-
ties exchanged between producers and
Case: 24-2311 Document: 31 Page: 5 Filed: 08/07/2025

-- 5 of 11 --

IN RE: HEALY 6
consumers, with larger proportional gains
returned for relatively bigger correct
moves;
wherein instances and opportunity for
price manipulation and hedging in the
marketplace are reduced, efficiency of the
marketplace is increased, and cost of oper-
ation is reduced, by having speculators di-
rectly provide price information to the
marketplace.
J.A. 28–29.
On April 12, 2022, an examiner rejected all of the
’621 application’s claims as patent ineligible under 35
U.S.C. § 101. J.A. 514–26; Decision at *2. The examiner
concluded that the claims were directed to “a process
that[] . . . covers fundamental economic principles and
commercial or legal interactions.” J.A. 516; accord Deci-
sion at *7. The examiner also determined that some addi-
tional limitations described by the claims were described
at such a high degree of generality as to “amount[] to no
more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea us-
ing a generic computer component.” J.A. 522. The exam-
iner concluded that “generally link[ing] the use of the
abstract idea to a particular technological environment
cannot provide an inventive concept.” J.A. 523.
Mr. Healy subsequently appealed the examiner’s rejec-
tions to the Board, J.A. 553, and the Board affirmed the
examiner’s rejections of representative claim 1 and claims
2–20, which rise and fall with claim 1. Decision at *11. The
Board rejected Mr. Healy’s arguments that claim 1 was di-
rected to technological improvements, concluding that any
improvements were improvements to the abstract ideas
themselves, rather than to any computer components or
technology. Id. at *8. The Board also agreed with the ex-
aminer that the additional limitations in claim 1 were de-
scribed “in general terms, without describing the
Case: 24-2311 Document: 31 Page: 6 Filed: 08/07/2025

-- 6 of 11 --

IN RE: HEALY 7
particulars,” such that the claims recite “conventional com-
puter components and techniques.” See id. at *11.
Mr. Healy filed this timely appeal. We have jurisdic-
tion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).
II. DISCUSSION
Patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is a question of
law that may implicate underlying fact issues. In re Marco
Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157, 1159 (Fed. Cir.
2018). “We review the Board’s ultimate conclusion on pa-
tent eligibility de novo.” In re Killian, 45 F.4th 1373, 1378
(Fed. Cir. 2022). We review the Board’s underlying factual
findings for substantial evidence. Customedia Techs., LLC
v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1362 (Fed. Cir.
2020).
Section 101 defines patent-eligible subject matter as
“any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or
composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement
thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court has long
held that there are implicit exceptions in § 101: “Laws of
nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not pa-
tentable.” Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genet-
ics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 589 (2013) (citation omitted). To
determine whether a patent claim is directed to patent-in-
eligible subject matter under § 101, we apply the two-step
framework set forth by the Supreme Court in Mayo Collab-
orative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S.
66 (2012) and Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank In-
ternational, 573 U.S. 208 (2014).
At step one, we determine whether the claim is “di-
rected to” a patent-ineligible concept. Alice, 573 U.S.
at 217; accord Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77. At step two, we “con-
sider the elements of each claim both individually and ‘as
an ordered combination’ to determine whether the addi-
tional elements ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a
patent-eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (quoting
Case: 24-2311 Document: 31 Page: 7 Filed: 08/07/2025

-- 7 of 11 --

IN RE: HEALY 8
Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78–79). The Supreme Court has de-
scribed the step two analysis “as a search for an ‘inventive
concept.’” Id. at 217 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72–73).
A.
As an initial matter, we reject Mr. Healy’s contention
that the Board committed procedural error in failing to con-
sider certain arguments. In particular, Mr. Healy appears
to argue that the Board should have considered arguments
he made in an office action response filed in 2022. Appel-
lant’s Br. 3–4 (citing J.A. 437–59 (response dated Jan. 11,
2022)). However, contrary to Mr. Healy’s contention, he
forfeited these arguments before the Board by failing to
raise them in his appeal brief to the Board. See, e.g., 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Mr. Healy also appears to argue that the Board erred
in failing to consider the withdrawal of the ’621 application
after he paid the issue fee in November 2020. Appellant’s
Br. 10; see also J.A. 349 (issue fee payment). However, the
United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”)
has the authority to withdraw an application from issue
because of the “[u]npatentability of one or more claims.” 37
C.F.R. § 1.313(b)(3); see also BlackLight Power, Inc.
v. Rogan, 295 F.3d 1269, 1273 (Fed. Cir. 2002). In any
event, Mr. Healy does not dispute that the ’621 application
was withdrawn from issue to address the unpatentability
of the pending claims. We thus reject Mr. Healy’s allega-
tions of procedural error.
B.
As to step one, Mr. Healy first challenges the Board’s
agreement with the examiner that claim 12 was directed to
2 On appeal, Mr. Healy argues that it was “im-
proper” for the Board to treat claim 1 as representative.
See Appellant’s Br. 2; see also Appellant’s Reply Br. 12.
Case: 24-2311 Document: 31 Page: 8 Filed: 08/07/2025

-- 8 of 11 --

IN RE: HEALY 9
an abstract idea, arguing that the claim does not recite
“fundamental economic principles and commercial [or] le-
gal interactions” and “was specifically drafted to avoid such
categorization.” Appellant’s Br. 3 (quoting Decision at *7).
Second, Mr. Healy argues that the Board improperly dis-
counted evidence that claim 1 was directed to technical im-
provements. Appellant’s Br. 6.
The Board properly considered the patent application
in determining that claim 1 was directed to a logical con-
struct for exchange markets, which is a quintessential
method of organizing human activity. See Decision at *7–
8. The specification explains that “process arrangement
and the algorithms that support it allow the separation of
speculation from trading so that speculator incentives can
be inverted to align with producers and consumers.”
J.A. 50 ¶ 8. Both the Supreme Court and this court have
repeatedly affirmed that analogous systems and methods
are patent ineligible. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 213, 219 (hold-
ing that claims “designed to facilitate the exchange of fi-
nancial obligations between two parties by using a
computer system as a third-party intermediary” were di-
rected to an abstract idea); Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun
Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1280
(Fed. Cir. 2012) (holding that claims covering systems and
methods of “managing a stable value protected life
However, because Mr. Healy failed to separately argue the
patentability of the remaining claims, see J.A. 569–84, the
Board was permitted to treat claim 1 as representative.
See, e.g., Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1365
(Fed. Cir. 2018) (“Courts may treat a claim as representa-
tive in certain situations, such as if the patentee does not
present any meaningful argument for the distinctive sig-
nificance of any claim limitations not found in the repre-
sentative claim . . . .”); In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1356–57
(Fed. Cir. 2011); see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Case: 24-2311 Document: 31 Page: 9 Filed: 08/07/2025

-- 9 of 11 --

IN RE: HEALY 10
insurance policy by performing calculations and manipu-
lating the results” were directed to an abstract idea).
Mr. Healy next argues that the Board failed to consider
how the claim “explicitly addresses technical improve-
ments” in “[b]andwidth utilization,” “[s]ystem integration
at scale,” “[c]omputing time optimization,” “[s]torage effi-
ciency,” and “[h]eat dissipation management.” Appellant’s
Br. 6. Mr. Healy, however, does not explain how claim 1
disclosed such improvements. Tellingly, before the Board,
he argued that “[t]he integration of a practical application
includes reducing market inefficiencies, including price
manipulation and hedging, reducing complexity and
thereby computing requirements, and the end result of
such integration is the very practical application of reduc-
ing the need for computing resources.” Decision at *8
(quoting J.A. 574). We conclude that any purported im-
provements from the claimed invention are simply im-
provements to the abstract idea, not specific improvements
to the underlying technology. See, e.g., Recentive Analytics,
Inc. v. Fox Corp., 134 F.4th 1205, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2025);
BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1288
(Fed. Cir. 2018). Therefore, the Board did not err in its step
one analysis.
C.
Mr. Healy urges that the Board’s analysis “for both
steps and both prongs of Alice” was improper. Appellant’s
Br. 13. We disagree.
At step two, the Board considered the additional limi-
tations recited by claim 1, such as an intermediary market
server, a telecommunication network, and a clearing house
module, and determined that they merely amounted to “ge-
neric computer-based elements along with no more than
mere instructions to implement the identified abstract idea
using the computer-based elements.” Decision at *11. We
have explained that such elements that are specified “at a
high level of generality” and “in functional terms” and that
Case: 24-2311 Document: 31 Page: 10 Filed: 08/07/2025

-- 10 of 11 --

IN RE: HEALY 11
“merely invoke[] well-understood, routine, conventional
components and activity to apply the abstract idea” cannot
supply an inventive concept. Elec. Commc’n Techs., LLC
v. ShoppersChoice.com, LLC, 958 F.3d 1178, 1183
(Fed. Cir. 2020). Therefore, we hold that the claims do not
recite an inventive concept and are patent ineligible under
§ 101.
III. CONCLUSION
We have considered Mr. Healy’s remaining arguments
and find them unpersuasive. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 24-2311 Document: 31 Page: 11 Filed: 08/07/2025

-- 11 of 11 --