As I made plain - I couldn't read the original article. But let me see if I understand you correctly. a) person A has a patent (which incidentally as a matter of law cannot be for just an abstract idea) b) person B challenges the patent - I am not sure what the grounds for this challenge are because you don't specify them. Is it because B is claiming that the patent was falsely awarded because it was no more than an abstract idea? c) person A disputes the challenge by pointing out that it isn't abstract.

If this interpretation of your comment is correct then I don't see how it is in conflict with my observation that abstract ideas can't be patented.