The mere fact that the inventor applied coined labels to conventional structures does not make the underlying concept inventive. See, e.g., Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352 n.2, 2360 (finding the claims abstract despite the recitation of technical sounding names such as "shadow credit record[s]" and "shadow debit record[s]").
The right and ability of every inventor to be his own lexicographer has been a cornerstone of the American patent system since its inception. Otherwise, what do you call the thingamajig that did not exist before, is "new and useful" and promotes the progress of science and the useful arts? "Spinning Jenny"?
Now, in a rash of inventor loathing opinions, we see the federal judiciary thrashing inventors for having the audacity to coin terms for things that the inventors believe to be new, useful and nonobvious.
That begs the question. Who fostered this rising wave of hatred among the judiciary and how did they do it?
STEP 1: Label them as trolls
STEP 2: Devise a vague troll detection test
STEP 3: Encourage the haters to devise their own, more sophisticated tests.