Patent Law FAQ
This FAQ answers all your questions about patent law, patent procedure, and the patent examination process.
MPEP 2100 – Patentability (2)
Improvements to computer functionality can be a key factor in establishing patent eligibility. According to MPEP 2106.05(a):
“If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification.”
The MPEP cites several examples of improvements to computer functionality that courts have found to be patent-eligible:
- A modification of conventional Internet hyperlink protocol to dynamically produce a dual-source hybrid webpage (DDR Holdings)
- A specific improvement to the way computers operate (Enfish)
- A particular method of incorporating virus screening into the Internet (Symantec Corp)
However, the MPEP also notes that “the mere fact that a computer may be able to perform the claimed steps more efficiently does not necessarily render an abstract idea less abstract.”
The key is that the improvement must be to the functioning of a computer or other technology, not just an improvement to an abstract idea implemented on a computer.
To learn more:
“Well-understood, routine, conventional activity” is a key concept in patent eligibility analysis. As explained in MPEP 2106.05(d):
“A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity.”
The MPEP provides several ways an examiner can support such a conclusion:
- A citation to an express statement in the specification or during prosecution
- A citation to one or more court decisions
- A citation to a publication demonstrating the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s)
- A statement that the examiner is taking official notice
It’s important to note that just because something is disclosed in a piece of prior art does not mean it is well-understood, routine, and conventional. The MPEP states: “The question of whether a particular claimed invention is novel or obvious is ‘fully apart’ from the question of whether it is eligible.”
To learn more:
MPEP 2106.05 – Eligibility Step 2B: Whether A Claim Amounts To Significantly More (2)
Improvements to computer functionality can be a key factor in establishing patent eligibility. According to MPEP 2106.05(a):
“If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification.”
The MPEP cites several examples of improvements to computer functionality that courts have found to be patent-eligible:
- A modification of conventional Internet hyperlink protocol to dynamically produce a dual-source hybrid webpage (DDR Holdings)
- A specific improvement to the way computers operate (Enfish)
- A particular method of incorporating virus screening into the Internet (Symantec Corp)
However, the MPEP also notes that “the mere fact that a computer may be able to perform the claimed steps more efficiently does not necessarily render an abstract idea less abstract.”
The key is that the improvement must be to the functioning of a computer or other technology, not just an improvement to an abstract idea implemented on a computer.
To learn more:
“Well-understood, routine, conventional activity” is a key concept in patent eligibility analysis. As explained in MPEP 2106.05(d):
“A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity.”
The MPEP provides several ways an examiner can support such a conclusion:
- A citation to an express statement in the specification or during prosecution
- A citation to one or more court decisions
- A citation to a publication demonstrating the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s)
- A statement that the examiner is taking official notice
It’s important to note that just because something is disclosed in a piece of prior art does not mean it is well-understood, routine, and conventional. The MPEP states: “The question of whether a particular claimed invention is novel or obvious is ‘fully apart’ from the question of whether it is eligible.”
To learn more:
Patent Law (2)
Improvements to computer functionality can be a key factor in establishing patent eligibility. According to MPEP 2106.05(a):
“If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification.”
The MPEP cites several examples of improvements to computer functionality that courts have found to be patent-eligible:
- A modification of conventional Internet hyperlink protocol to dynamically produce a dual-source hybrid webpage (DDR Holdings)
- A specific improvement to the way computers operate (Enfish)
- A particular method of incorporating virus screening into the Internet (Symantec Corp)
However, the MPEP also notes that “the mere fact that a computer may be able to perform the claimed steps more efficiently does not necessarily render an abstract idea less abstract.”
The key is that the improvement must be to the functioning of a computer or other technology, not just an improvement to an abstract idea implemented on a computer.
To learn more:
“Well-understood, routine, conventional activity” is a key concept in patent eligibility analysis. As explained in MPEP 2106.05(d):
“A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity.”
The MPEP provides several ways an examiner can support such a conclusion:
- A citation to an express statement in the specification or during prosecution
- A citation to one or more court decisions
- A citation to a publication demonstrating the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s)
- A statement that the examiner is taking official notice
It’s important to note that just because something is disclosed in a piece of prior art does not mean it is well-understood, routine, and conventional. The MPEP states: “The question of whether a particular claimed invention is novel or obvious is ‘fully apart’ from the question of whether it is eligible.”
To learn more:
Patent Procedure (2)
Improvements to computer functionality can be a key factor in establishing patent eligibility. According to MPEP 2106.05(a):
“If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification.”
The MPEP cites several examples of improvements to computer functionality that courts have found to be patent-eligible:
- A modification of conventional Internet hyperlink protocol to dynamically produce a dual-source hybrid webpage (DDR Holdings)
- A specific improvement to the way computers operate (Enfish)
- A particular method of incorporating virus screening into the Internet (Symantec Corp)
However, the MPEP also notes that “the mere fact that a computer may be able to perform the claimed steps more efficiently does not necessarily render an abstract idea less abstract.”
The key is that the improvement must be to the functioning of a computer or other technology, not just an improvement to an abstract idea implemented on a computer.
To learn more:
“Well-understood, routine, conventional activity” is a key concept in patent eligibility analysis. As explained in MPEP 2106.05(d):
“A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity.”
The MPEP provides several ways an examiner can support such a conclusion:
- A citation to an express statement in the specification or during prosecution
- A citation to one or more court decisions
- A citation to a publication demonstrating the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s)
- A statement that the examiner is taking official notice
It’s important to note that just because something is disclosed in a piece of prior art does not mean it is well-understood, routine, and conventional. The MPEP states: “The question of whether a particular claimed invention is novel or obvious is ‘fully apart’ from the question of whether it is eligible.”
To learn more: