“Can a court determine at the pleading stage that a claimed method or claim element is unconventional yet not unknown enough to be patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by engaging in a quasi-Section 103 analysis of obviousness, and, if so, how much more is required beyond unconventionality, is the determination factual or legal, and how does that determination relate to the Section 103 protections against hindsight bias?”
