OPINION

ROBERT HOLMES BELL, District Judge.

On March 7, 2012, Planet Bingo, LLC sued VKGS, LLC (d/b/a Video King) for patent infringement. (Dkt. No. 1.) On October 19, 2012, following extensive briefing and a hearing, this Court denied, without prejudice, Video King's motion for summary judgment, which argued that Planet Bingo's patents are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for failure to recite patentable subject matter. (Dkt. No. 34.) In denying this motion without prejudice, the Court instructed the parties that the motion could be renewed following claim construction. A Markman hearing was held on April 18, 2013, and the Court issued an opinion and order construing the disputed terms in Patent Nos. 6,398,646 (the '646 Patent) and 6,656,045 (the '045 Patent) on April 22, 2013, 2013 WL 1729574. (Dkt. Nos. 58-60.) This matter is before the Court on Video King's renewed motion for summary judgment on account of invalidity. (Dkt. No. 66.)

I.

The '646 patent is directed at a computer-aided method and system for managing a Bingo game while allowing a repeat player to play the same sets of numbers in multiple games of Bingo. (Dkt. No. 1, Ex. A, '646 Patent, Abstract.) Essentially, the system allows (1) players to select their own numbers and store them for later use, (2) players to print off game tickets at the Bingo playing site with those pre-selected numbers, and (3) Bingo hall operators to track and validate these sets of numbers. (Id.) The '045 Patent is similar. It is directed to an automated method and system for storing preselected Bingo numbers, which allows players to play the same sets of Bingo numbers in multiple sessions. (Dkt. No. 1, Ex. B, '045 Patent, Abstract.) Players can pay to purchase the sets of Bingo numbers and also input them into the computer to verify a winning set of Bingo numbers. (Id.)

Video King moved for summary judgment on account of non-patentable subject matter on August 31, 2012. (Dkt. No. 21.) In denying this motion without prejudice the Court noted that, although Video King presented a "strong case" for invalidity, the abstractness of the subject matter of the patents was not certain and claim construction would be helpful before making a final determination on invalidity. (Dkt. No. 34, at 4-5.) Consequently, the Court reviewed extensive briefing on claim construction and held a Markman hearing. Following this hearing, the Court issued an opinion and order declining to construe terms entitled to their ordinary meaning, construing terms not commonly used or ambiguous as written, and invalidating Claims 26-27 of the '646 Patent and Claims 15-16 of the '045 Patent as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). (Dkt. Nos. 59-60.)

II.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require the Court to grant summary judgment "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). In evaluating a motion for summary judgment the Court must look beyond the pleadings and assess the proof to determine whether there is a genuine need for trial. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986).

In considering a motion for summary judgment, "the district court must construe the evidence and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party." Martin v. Cincinnati Gas and Elec. Co., 561 F.3d 439, 443 (6th Cir.2009) (citing Jones v. Potter, 488 F.3d 397, 403 (6th Cir.2007)). Nevertheless, the mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of a non-movant's position is not sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). The proper inquiry is whether the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party. Id.; see generally Street v. J.C. Bradford & Co., 886 F.2d 1472, 1476-80 (6th Cir.1989).

All issued patents are presumed valid, 35 U.S.C. § 282, a presumption which applies to all challenges to patentability, including those under § 101. CLS Bank Int'l v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 717 F.3d 1269, 1284 (Fed.Cir.2013) (en banc) (Lourie, C.J., concurring).

The scope of patentable subject matter is defined 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 Court has long held that this provision contains an important implicit exception. `[L]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas' are not patentable." Mayo Collaborative Serv. v. Prometheus Lab., Inc., ___ U.S. ___, 132 S.Ct. 1289, 1293, 182 L.Ed.2d 321 (2012) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 185, 101 S.Ct. 1048, 67 L.Ed.2d 155 (1981)). "[M]ethods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas." CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1371 (Fed.Cir. 2011).

III.

The parties dispute the appropriate legal test to use for determining whether a computer-aided invention is abstract. This dispute is mostly the product of the Federal Circuit's own confusion on the matter. See CLS Bank, 717 F.3d at 1276 (Lourie, C.J., concurring) ("Short and unadorned, § 101 appears deceptively simple on its face, yet its proper application to computer-implemented inventions and in various other fields of technology has long vexed this and other courts."). CLS Bank, the Federal Circuit's most recent en banc opinion regarding patentable subject matter, resulted in a brief per curiam judgment that stated the court's holding but no reasoning. Id. at 1273. This holding was supplemented by five additional, conflicting opinions, none of which garnered a majority, and a "reflection." (See id. at 1292 n. 1 (Rader, C.J. concurring in part and dissenting in part).) Not only does this fractured opinion evidence the fact that the circuit judges disagree about which legal test to use to determine abstractness, but also that even those circuit judges who do agree on which test to use cannot agree on the application of that test.

Ignoring the question of application for the moment, in CLS Bank the judges were mainly split between two approaches to abstractness under § 101.1

First, the plurality opinion authored by Circuit Judge Lourie, and representing five members of the ten judge en banc panel, advances an "Integrated Approach" which combines basic principles espoused in previous Supreme Court § 101 decisions2 to come up with a comprehensive test:

CLS Bank, 717 F.3d at 1282-84 (Lourie, C.J. concurring) (internal citations omitted).

Chief Judge Rader, and a total of four of the en banc judges, also relying on Supreme Court precedent, advocate a contrary approach, which the Court will call the "Meaningful Limitations Approach":

Id. at 1299-1302 (Rader, C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (internal citations omitted).

As a result of the Federal Circuit's present fractured state, this Court is left in a quandary. As Circuit Judge Newman aptly noted in her CLS Bank opinion, as a result of the split en banc decision, "the only assurance" is that, unless the Supreme Court takes up the issue again, the patent eligibility of any invention challenged on abstractness grounds "will depend on the random selection of the [Federal Circuit] panel." CLS Bank, 717 F.3d at 1321. Nevertheless, despite the seeming futility of adopting one of the non-precedential approaches from CLS Bank, the Court will endeavor to follow the law as it sees it.

In this Court's opinion, the approach proffered by Circuit Judge Lourie accurately reflects the current state of Supreme Court jurisprudence. A large source of the divide in CLS Bank (ignoring for a moment the fundamental policy differences between the Lourie and Rader camps) centers on what the Supreme Court meant by the phrase "inventive concept" in Mayo. See Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294 ("[Supreme Court precedents] insist that a process that focuses upon the use of a natural law also contain other elements or a combination of elements, sometimes referred to as an `inventive concept,' sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the natural law itself."). Chief Judge Rader contends that the plurality's interpretation of "inventive concept" as "a product of human ingenuity" results in "stripping away all known elements from the asserted system claims and analyzing only whether what remains, as opposed to the claim as a whole, is an abstract idea." 717 F.3d at 1315.3 It is well-established that claims must be considered as a whole when assessing patent eligibility. See Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188, 101 S.Ct. 1048.

However, the Court finds Chief Judge Rader's concern to be overstated. Circuit Judge Lourie specifies that under his interpretation of "inventive concept," claims are evaluated as a whole for whether they result in a product of human ingenuity. First, he cites Mayo for the proposition that "we must look for meaningful limitations that prevent the claim as a whole from covering the concept's every practical application." 717 F.3d at 1281 (emphasis added). Second, following multiple citations to Mayo to justify his interpretation of "inventive concept," Circuit Judge Lourie explains the practical effect of applying his interpretation: "Analyzing patent eligibility... considers whether steps combined with a natural law or abstract idea are so insignificant, conventional, or routine as to yield a claim that effectively covers the natural law or abstract idea itself." Id. at 1284 (emphasis added).

Moreover, the Court finds that Chief Judge Rader's preferred interpretation of "inventive concept" is inconsistent with Mayo. From his opinion, it appears that Chief Judge Rader interprets "inventive concept" to mean that any system claim which contains structural limitations satisfies the inventive concept requirement:

Id. at 1316. This is basically a rewording of the "machine" alternative of the machine or transformation test for patentable subject matter, a test which Chief Judge Rader cites approvingly earlier in his opinion. See id. at 1302 ("[A] claim is meaningfully limited if it requires a particular machine implementing a process or a particular transformation of matter."). However, in Mayo, the Supreme Court emphasized Bilski's holding that the machine or transformation test, while a "useful and important clue," "is not a definitive test of patent eligibility." Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1296 (citing Bilski, 130 S.Ct. at 3227). This holding not only means that the machine or transformation test is non-exclusive, but it also means, as evidenced by Mayo's further analysis, that the test is not dispositive of patent eligibility even if satisfied. After all, Mayo, in finding that not all transformations are relevant to the abstractness inquiry, noted that the Supreme Court has never held that the machine or transformation test trumps the exclusions to patentable subject matter. Id. at 1303.

Consequently, the Court believes that Chief Judge Rader's reasoning oversimplifies the meaning of "inventive concept." While it is surely true that sometimes the addition of a physical component to an abstract idea or the use of a particular machine can result in a non-abstract invention, this is not always the case. This is precisely why Mayo required there to be an "inventive" concept as opposed to a "physical" or "transformative" concept. 132 S.Ct. at 1294; see also Bilski, 130 S.Ct. at 3230 (quoting Diehr, 101 S.Ct. at 1048) ("[T]he prohibition against patenting abstract ideas `cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment' or adding `insignificant postsolution activity.'"); Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed.Cir.2012) ("[T]he use of a computer in an otherwise patent-ineligible process for no more than its most basic function — making calculations or computations — fails to circumvent the prohibition against patenting abstract ideas and mental processes.").

The Court will accordingly apply Circuit Judge Lourie's approach, which garnered the most votes in CLS Bank and most adequately represents the current law on patentable subject matter.4 Before analyzing the claims in this case under this approach, a brief word must be said on the approach advocated by Planet Bingo. Planet Bingo argues for a "manifest abstractness" test:

(Dkt. No. 67, Resp. at 15 (quoting Big Baboon, Inc. v. Dell, Inc., CV 09-1198 SVW (SSx), 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155536, at *39 (C.D.Cal. Feb. 8, 2011))). In support of this "manifest abstractness" approach, Planet Bingo cites to Research Corp. Technologies, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859 (Fed.Cir.2010), and Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315 (Fed.Cir.2012). However, Planet Bingo is merely "cherry-picking" a phrase that appears in these two decisions. There is no "manifest abstractness" test in Federal Circuit jurisprudence. The reference to "manifestly" first appeared in Research Corp. as part of an effort to define what "abstract" means. See Research Corp., 627 F.3d at 868 ("[T]his court also will not presume to define "abstract" beyond the recognition that this disqualifying characteristic should exhibit itself so manifestly as to override the broad statutory categories of eligible subject matter and the statutory context that directs primary attention on the patentability criteria of the rest of the Patent Act.").5 The term "manifest" does not appear in any of the opinions in CLS Bank and will not be considered part of the abstractness approach by this Court either.

IV.

In CLS Bank, eight judges agreed that the same analysis should apply to both the system and method claims at issue. The five judges represented by Circuit Judge Lourie argued that system and method claims should always receive such equal treatment:

717 F.3d at 1289-90 (internal citations omitted). Circuit Judges Linn and O'Malley, while agreeing that equal treatment in CLS Bank was appropriate, argued that system and method claims should only receive the same analysis when "they all contain the same computer based limitations." Id. at 1332. Circuit Judge Newman shared the view that the CLS Bank claims should stand or fall together but did not expound on her reasoning. Id. at 1327. In any case, the system and method claims in this case all contain the same computer based limitations and thus will be treated the same, as discussed below.

A. Independent Method Claims

1. Claims

Claims 7, 13, and 19 of the '646 Patent and Claims 5, 17, and 23 of the '045 Patent are independent method claims.

Claim 7 of the '646 Patent reads as follows:

('646 Patent, Claim 7.) Claims 13 and 19 of the '646 Patent parallel Claim 7 (albeit not word for word), except they mention the use of a computer in the introduction of the claim and include four "displaying" steps in place of the output steps appearing in Claim 7(a)(vii-viii):

('646 Patent, Claims 13, 19.)

Claim 5 of the '045 Patent reads as follows:

('045 Patent, Claim 5.) Claim 17 mirrors Claim 5, except it excludes the "for repetitive play ... over a period of time" limitation which appears in Claim 5(e). Additionally, Claim 17(i) adds the phrase "and less than all the sets of Bingo numbers" immediately following "selecting at least one set of Bingo numbers." Last, Claim 17 lacks the "assigning a separate control number" and "paying" steps which appears in Claim 5(j),(k). Claim 23 of the '045 Patent is substantially similar to Claim 5 except it includes the use of a computer in the introduction of the claim and includes four "displaying" steps in place of the output steps appearing in Claim 5(k)-(n):

('045 Patent, Claim 23.)

2. Application of Integrated Approach

In somewhat simplified layman's terms, all of the method claims recite a computer-aided method for playing the game of Bingo which allows for the storage of a player's preferred sets of Bingo numbers, the retrieval of one such set upon demand, and the playing of such a set, while simultaneously allowing a Bingo operator to track these sets and verify winning numbers. The differences between the iterations, besides minor wording and structural divergences, are in display capabilities and in the option to purchase sets of Bingo numbers.

Because these method claims plainly recite processes, they are within the statutory classes laid out by § 101. Thus, as the Integrated Approach instructs, "[t]he issue presented then becomes whether that process amounts to no more than a patent-ineligible abstract idea." 717 F.3d at 1285-86. First, the Court must identify the abstract idea represented in the claim. Plainly, each method claim encompasses the abstract idea of managing/playing the game of Bingo. Managing and/or playing the game of Bingo, of course, consists solely of mental steps which can be carried out by a human using pen and paper, and on its own is not patentable. See CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1371 ("[M]ethods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas.").

The Integrated Approach next requires, as a preemption analysis, a determination as to whether additional substantive limitations are included on the managing and/or playing of the game of Bingo in each claim so that each claim does not cover the full abstract idea itself. These substantive limitations must represent a human contribution that is more than "tangential, routine, well-understood, or conventional." CLS Bank, 717 F.3d at 1283 (Lourie, C.J., concurring). Instead, the human contribution (i.e., Mayo's "inventive concept"), when considering the claim as a whole, must be "a product of human ingenuity." Id. The use of a computer as an essential limitation in a claim covering an abstract process does not necessarily make the claim non-abstract. See CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1375 ("[T]he incidental use of a computer to perform the mental process [of the claim] does not impose a sufficiently meaningful limit on the claim's scope.... [T]he basic character of a process claim drawn to an abstract idea is not changed by claiming only its performance by computers, or by claiming the process embodied in program instructions on a computer readable medium.").

Taken as a whole, the limitations in the method claims cannot be said to result in a product of human ingenuity. First, the limitations provide only for the use of a computer performing its most basic functions: storing numbers, assigning identifiers, allowing for basic inputs and outputs, printing of a receipt, displaying of numbers, and/or matching a player's numbers with the called numbers for verification. "[T]he use of a computer in an otherwise patent-ineligible process for no more than its most basic function — making calculations or computations — fails to circumvent the prohibition against patenting abstract ideas and mental processes." Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, 687 F.3d 1266, 1277-78 (Fed.Cir. 2012); see also WhitServe, LLC v. Computer Packages, Inc., 694 F.3d 10, 40 (Fed. Cir.2012) ("Because the WhitServe patents simply describe a basic and widely-understood concept — that it is useful to provide people with reminders of important due dates and deadlines — and then apply that concept using conventional computer technology and the Internet, they fail to meet section 101's subject matter eligibility requirements.").

Second, the recitation of a computer limitation in these method claims does not change the fact that the steps to be undertaken by a computer program are all steps that can be carried out by a human with pen and paper. "To salvage an otherwise patent-ineligible process, a computer must be integral to the claimed invention, facilitating the process in a way that a person making calculations or computations could not." Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1278. Bingo has been managed and played for decades with humans carrying out all of the steps recited in the claims; to have a computer program carry out these steps via its basic functions is not a product of human ingenuity and does not disguise the fact that an abstract process is claimed. To grant patent protection in such a case would "impede innovation more than it would tend to promote it." Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1293.

Last, the use of a computer in the method claims adds nothing more than the ability to manage a game of Bingo more efficiently. Planet Bingo argues that its invention has reduced the risk of tampering with "pick-your-own-numbers" Bingo and eliminated long lines to play Bingo. (Dkt. No. 68, Wei Decl. ¶ 10; Dkt. No. 69, Forman Decl. ¶ 7.) However, this argument is basically one of improved efficiency and accuracy, qualities which cannot support a finding that the claimed subject matter is non-abstract. "[A computer] must play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly, i.e., through the utilization of a computer for performing calculations." SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 601 F.3d 1319, 1333 (Fed. Cir.2010); see also MySpace, Inc. v. Graphon Corp., 672 F.3d 1250, 1267 (Fed.Cir. 2012) (Mayer, J., dissenting) ("While running a particular process on a computer undeniably improves efficiency and accuracy, cloaking an otherwise abstract idea in the guise of a computer-implemented claim is insufficient to bring it within section 101.").

Planet Bingo argues that the Court must take into account the commercial success of the invention for the abstractness analysis, citing Research Corp., which indicated that "inventions with specific applications or improvements to technologies in the marketplace are not likely to be so abstract that they override the statutory language and framework of the Patent Act." 627 F.3d at 869. However, Research Corp. proffered this proposition without citation or support, and the Court cannot find any instance where the Supreme Court has ever indicated that commercial applicability plays a role in determining abstractness. Moreover, the proposition that commercial success may play a role in the abstractness inquiry has subsequently been limited by the Federal Circuit. In Bancorp, the Federal Circuit dismissed the proposition that commercial success was applicable to the abstractness inquiry in every case. 687 F.3d at 1279. In finding that commercial applicability was irrelevant to its analysis, Bancorp distinguished Research Corp. by noting that (1) "the claimed processes in Research Corp. plainly represented improvements to computer technologies in the marketplace" and that (2) unlike in Research Corp., "the computer [in the Bancorp invention] merely permits one to manage a stable value protected life insurance policy more efficiently than one could mentally." Id. The invention in this case contains the same deficiencies highlighted in regard to the Bancorp invention. As discussed, Planet Bingo's invention is not a "technological advance." See id. Moreover, as in Bancorp, the use of a computer in Planet Bingo's invention is "to accelerate an ineligible mental process." See id. Consequently, the invention's marketplace applicability in this case does not transform the subject matter of the invention from abstract to non-abstract.

For all of the foregoing reasons, the method claims of the '646 and '045 Patents are invalid under § 101 for failure to recite patentable subject matter.

B. Independent System Claims

1. Claims

Claim 1 of the '646 Patent and Claims 1 and 10 of the '045 Patent are independent system claims. Claim 1 of the '646 Patent parallels Claim 7 of the same patent, except Claim 1 covers a "a system for managing a game of Bingo" which comprises the recited steps as opposed to Claim 7 covering "a method for playing a game of Bingo" which comprises those same steps:

('646 Patent, Claim 1.) Claims 1 and 10 of the '045 Patent are substantially similar. Claim 1 adds an additional step to the computer program of payment by the player to purchase the selected Bingo numbers for play. ('045 Patent, Claim 1(d)(vii).) Additionally, Claim 1 allows input of the control number and validation number for verification purposes (whereas Claim 1 of the '646 Patent only allows for "output" of a winning set of Bingo numbers for verification). ('045 Patent, Claim 1(d)(ix-x). Claim 10 of the '045 Patent mirrors Claim 1 of the '045 Patent, except it does not allow for payment by the player to purchase the selected Bingo numbers for play and does not allow for input of the validation number for verification purposes (it still allows for input of the control number, however). ('045 Patent, Claim 10.)

2. Application of Integrated Approach

As even a quick examination of the system claims reveals, these claims recite the same basic process as the method claims. Whereas the method claims cover a "method for playing a game of Bingo" comprising a computer and a computer program carrying out enumerated steps, the system claims cover a "system for managing a game of Bingo" comprising the same computer and computer program carrying out enumerated steps. (Compare, e.g., '646 Patent, Claim 1 ("A system for managing a game of Bingo which comprises... a computer ... and (c) a program in the computer enabling ....") with '646 Patent, Claim 7 ("A method for playing a game of Bingo which comprises ... a computer ... and a program in the computer enabling ....).) This switch of a simple phrase, to change method claims to system claims which possess virtually the same limitations, demonstrates the truth of Circuit Judge Lourie's observation that "it is often a straightforward exercise to translate a method claim into system form, and vice versa." 717 F.3d at 1289-90.

Here, the limitations of the system claims are the same as the limitations of the method claims that failed to result in an "inventive concept." Once again, a computer is used only for its most basic functions in each claim: storing numbers, assigning identifiers, allowing for basic inputs and outputs, printing of a receipt, displaying of numbers, and/or matching a player's numbers with the called numbers for verification. These are the same types of "calculation, storage, and data exchange" computer functions found to not supply meaningful limitations in CLS Bank. Id. at 1290. Accordingly, for the same reasons that the method claims are invalid for reciting unpatentable subject matter, the system claims are invalid under § 101.

C. Dependent Claims

1. Claims

The dependent system and method claims can be split into the following categories based on the new limitation each adds:

1. Use of a Second Computer
to Enable an Output

   Dependent Claims                                    Limitation

'646 Patent Claims 2, 8;      Use of a second computer system which enables an output of a
'045 Patent Claims 7, 11,     print of the set of Bingo numbers
19, 24

'045 Patent Claim 2           Use of a second computer system which enables use of the
                              validation number to receive an output of the set of Bingo
                              numbers selected for play in the selected game of Bingo to be
                              used by the player

2. Manual Inputs

'646 Patent Claims 3, 9;      A player inputs a set of preselected Bingo numbers into the
'045 Patent Claims 3, 12,     computer
20

'646 Patent Claims 4, 10;     An operator of the computer inputs a set of preselected Bingo
'045 Patent Claims 13,        numbers into the computer
21

3. Output of Verification
Through Printer

'646 Patent Claims 6, 12;     The output of the verification of the winning set of Bingo
'045 Patent Claim 14          numbers with the control number is printed by the printer

'045 Patent Claim 22          An output of a verification of the winning set of Bingo numbers is
                              printed by a printer

4. Printed Receipt: Uses of, Display of

'646 Patent Claims 14,        The display of the set of Bingo numbers and the control identifier
20                            is a printed receipt and the printed receipt is used to obtain a
                              Bingo card having the set of Bingo numbers selected by the
                              player
'646 Patent Claims 15,        The printed receipt has a receipt validation number and the
21; '045 Patent Claim 25      receipt validation number is received by the computer or second
                              computer to obtain the Bingo card having the set of Bingo
                              numbers selected by the player
'646 Patent Claim 18;         The display of the set of Bingo numbers and the control identifier
'045 Patent Claim 28          is a printed receipt which also includes a date of the game of
                              Bingo, a price for the set of Bingo numbers to be played in a
                              game of Bingo, and a computer identification number

5. Display Additions

'646 Patent Claims 5, 11      The input and output terminal includes a video screen

'646 Patent Claims 16,        The display is received by a portable Bingo terminal
22; '045 Patent Claims
4, 26

6. Verification

'646 Patent Claim 17;         After or during the game of Bingo, winning numbers are received
'045 Patent Claim 27          and the set of Bingo numbers corresponding to the potentially
                              winning control identifier are compared to the winning numbers
                              to determine whether the winning set of Bingo numbers is a
                              winning set of Bingo numbers

'045 Patent Claims 6, 18      Verification of the winning set of Bingo numbers using the
                              computer program

7. Use of Buying Points

'646 Patent Claim 25;         An accounting of the set of Bingo numbers which is selected by
'045 Patent Claims 9, 30      the player for play in the game of Bingo is provided comprising
                              the additional steps of: receiving an amount of buying points
                              corresponding to the player; storing the amount of buying points
                              on the computer readable medium; assigning the player identifier
                              to the buying points wherein one player identifier is assigned
                              to the buying points and the preselected set of Bingo numbers
                              corresponding to one player; retrieving the buying points along
                              with the group having the preselected set of Bingo numbers
                              corresponding to the player; subtracting from the amount of
                              buying points a number of buying points corresponding to each
                              set of Bingo numbers selected by the player to be played in the
                              game of Bingo; displaying a new amount of buying points with
                              the set of Bingo numbers to be played in the game of Bingo in
                              step (h); and replacing the amount of buying points with the new
                              amount of buying points on the computer readable medium

8. Use of Easy Pick Identifier

'646 Patent Claim 24;         Additional steps are added to the method, consisting of (a)
'045 Patent Claims 8, 29      receiving an easy pick identifier and randomly generating a
                              random set of Bingo numbers to be played in the game of Bingo
                              in response to the easy pick identifier, and (b) assigning a control
                              identifier for the random set of Bingo numbers wherein the
                              control identifier for the random set of Bingo numbers is stored
                              with the control identifier for the set of Bingo numbers to be
                              played in the game of Bingo

9. Erasure of Control Identifier

'646 Patent Claim 23          When the winning set of Bingo numbers is determined the control
                              identifier for the set of Bingo numbers to be played in the game of
                              Bingo is erased from the computer readable medium

2. Application of Integrated Approach

The limitations provided by the dependent claims are not meaningful. Instead, these limitations are slight variations on the limitations contained in the independent claims. The use of the output function of a second computer, manual inputs, printed outputs, additional display options, and additional verification options utilize the same basic functions of a computer already discussed and still constitute steps that could be performed by a human using pen and paper. Similarly, the addition of "buying points" merely requires another use of the computer's simple storage and calculation abilities, while the inclusion of an "easy pick identifier" relies on the computer's basic input and output functions. Although not previously discussed, the computer's ability to erase memory is similarly a basic function. Consequently, for the same reasons discussed in regard to the independent claims, the dependent claims also recite unpatentable subject matter.

V.

For the reasons stated above, every remaining claim in the '646 and '045 Patents will be invalidated under § 101 for failure to recite patentable subject matter. Because Planet Bingo cannot maintain its claims for patent infringement with the '646 and '045 Patents invalidated, Video King is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

An order consistent with this opinion will be entered.

ORDER

For the reasons stated in the opinion entered this date,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Video King's renewed motion for summary judgment on account of invalidity (Dkt. No. 66) is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the remaining claims of the '646 and '045 Patents are INVALID under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Planet Bingo's complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED.

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the opinion and order entered this date,

JUDGMENT is entered in favor of Defendant Video King.