Taylor v. Andrus

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “trans- mitting electronic data to a user in response to a spoken request from the user” is abstract
• concluding that claims merely “describ[ing] a desired function or outcome, without providing any limiting detail that confine[s] the claim to a particular solution to an identified problem,” were abstract
• discussing various claim limitations and finding no claim limitation sufficient \to tie the claims to a specific improvement in technology or a technological solution to an identified problem\
• “[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).