## Facts

- Applicants Ray Smith and Amanda Tears Smith sought a patent for a “Blackjack Variation” described as a wagering game using real or virtual standard playing cards.
- The application claimed a method for conducting a blackjack-like game, including shuffling a deck, accepting wagers, dealing two cards to each player and the dealer, and resolving bets under specific rule changes (including “Natural 0 count” outcomes and constrained hit/stand requirements).
- A patent examiner rejected claims 1–18 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to an abstract idea (rules for playing a wagering game).
- The Patent Trial and Appeal Board affirmed the § 101 rejection, treating claim 1 as representative.
- Applicants appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, arguing the claims were not abstract because they required shuffling and dealing physical playing cards and challenging the PTO’s 2014 Interim Eligibility Guidance.

## Issues

1. Whether claims reciting a method of conducting a wagering card game (a blackjack variation) are directed to an abstract idea under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
2. If the claims are directed to an abstract idea, whether reciting conventional steps involving physical playing cards supplies an “inventive concept” that makes the claims patent-eligible.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s rejection of claims 1–18 under § 101.
- At step one, the court held the claims were directed to the abstract idea of rules for playing a wagering game, a type of organizing human activity.
- At step two, the court held that using physical playing cards, shuffling, and dealing were conventional activities that did not transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
- The court declined to reach Applicants’ challenge to the PTO’s 2014 Interim Eligibility Guidance because the claims failed § 101 under governing precedent regardless of the guidance.

## Legal Principles

- Section 101 excludes laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas.
- Under the Alice/Mayo framework:
  - Step one asks whether the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, including an abstract idea.
  - Step two asks whether additional claim elements, individually or as an ordered combination, add an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.
- Rules for playing games, including wagering games, may constitute abstract ideas.
- Merely implementing game rules with routine, well-understood physical components and conventional steps (e.g., standard decks, shuffling, and dealing) does not supply the inventive concept required for eligibility.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit held that a claimed blackjack-variation method amounted to abstract game rules and that conventional use of physical playing cards and standard dealing steps did not add an inventive concept, so the claims were ineligible under § 101.


In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816 (Fed. Cir. 2016)