Blurred Lines In Patent Eligibility Analyses

In two recent cases, American Axle v. Neapco and Chamberlain v. Techtronic , the Federal Circuit held claims to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by using rationales that seem to be based on lack of enablement (§ 112) and obviousness (§ 103), and used language that can be applied highly subjectively, which, when taken out of context, can be applied to virtually any patent claim.  For example, in the two decisions discussed below it seems the Federal Circuit has taken its own precedent and applied it beyond the usual software and business method context, using it as a substitute for analysis under Sections 112 and 103.  A draft bill for reform of Section 101, such as the one discussed below, would seem to prevent use of such rationales, and may provide more predictability for eligibility analyses.