At long last, a sign of hope.
In a break from a constant stream of insanities, the Fed. Cir. steps back and takes a more detailed look at preemption and specificity in McRO, Inc. v. Bandai
"It is the incorporation of the claimed rules, not the use of the computer, that “improved [the] existing technological process” by allowing the automation of further tasks. ....
"Further, the automation goes beyond merely "organizing [existing] information into a new form" or carrying out a fundamental economic practice. Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1351; see also Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2356. The claimed process uses a combined order of specific rules that renders information into a specific format that is then used and applied to create desired results: a sequence of synchronized, animated characters. While the result may not be tangible, there is nothing that requires a method "be tied to a machine or transform an article" to be patentable. Bilski, 561 U.S. at 603 (discussing 35 U.S.C. § 100(b)). The concern underlying the exceptions to § 101 is not tangibility, but preemption. Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301.