Patent Law FAQ
This FAQ answers all your questions about patent law, patent procedure, and the patent examination process.
MPEP 2100 – Patentability (2)
The “particular machine” consideration plays a significant role in the overall patent eligibility analysis, particularly in the context of the Alice/Mayo test. Here’s how it fits into the broader analysis:
- It’s part of Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test.
- In Step 2A Prong Two, it can help determine if the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application.
- In Step 2B, it can contribute to the “significantly more” analysis.
- A particular machine can potentially transform an abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
MPEP 2106.05(b) states: “The particularity or generality of the elements of the machine or apparatus, i.e., the degree to which the machine in the claim can be specifically identified (not any and all machines) is a factor in considering whether it is a ‘particular machine.’”
The MPEP further clarifies: “Whether its involvement is extra-solution activity or a field-of-use, i.e., the extent to which (or how) the machine or apparatus imposes meaningful limits on the claim. Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more.”
To learn more:
Adding a generic computer or generic computer components to a claim does not automatically make it patent-eligible. The MPEP 2106.05(b) provides clear guidance on this matter:
“Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection.”
This principle is based on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Bilski and Alice Corp. When evaluating claims with added generic computer elements, examiners should consider:
- Whether the added elements integrate the exception into a practical application
- Whether they provide significantly more than the judicial exception
It’s important to note that the rationale from Alappat, which suggested that an otherwise ineligible algorithm could be made patent-eligible by adding a generic computer, has been superseded by more recent Supreme Court decisions.
Applicants should focus on demonstrating how the computer elements contribute to the claim’s eligibility beyond merely performing generic computer functions.
To learn more:
MPEP 2106.05(B) – Particular Machine (2)
The “particular machine” consideration plays a significant role in the overall patent eligibility analysis, particularly in the context of the Alice/Mayo test. Here’s how it fits into the broader analysis:
- It’s part of Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test.
- In Step 2A Prong Two, it can help determine if the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application.
- In Step 2B, it can contribute to the “significantly more” analysis.
- A particular machine can potentially transform an abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
MPEP 2106.05(b) states: “The particularity or generality of the elements of the machine or apparatus, i.e., the degree to which the machine in the claim can be specifically identified (not any and all machines) is a factor in considering whether it is a ‘particular machine.’”
The MPEP further clarifies: “Whether its involvement is extra-solution activity or a field-of-use, i.e., the extent to which (or how) the machine or apparatus imposes meaningful limits on the claim. Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more.”
To learn more:
Adding a generic computer or generic computer components to a claim does not automatically make it patent-eligible. The MPEP 2106.05(b) provides clear guidance on this matter:
“Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection.”
This principle is based on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Bilski and Alice Corp. When evaluating claims with added generic computer elements, examiners should consider:
- Whether the added elements integrate the exception into a practical application
- Whether they provide significantly more than the judicial exception
It’s important to note that the rationale from Alappat, which suggested that an otherwise ineligible algorithm could be made patent-eligible by adding a generic computer, has been superseded by more recent Supreme Court decisions.
Applicants should focus on demonstrating how the computer elements contribute to the claim’s eligibility beyond merely performing generic computer functions.
To learn more:
Patent Law (2)
The “particular machine” consideration plays a significant role in the overall patent eligibility analysis, particularly in the context of the Alice/Mayo test. Here’s how it fits into the broader analysis:
- It’s part of Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test.
- In Step 2A Prong Two, it can help determine if the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application.
- In Step 2B, it can contribute to the “significantly more” analysis.
- A particular machine can potentially transform an abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
MPEP 2106.05(b) states: “The particularity or generality of the elements of the machine or apparatus, i.e., the degree to which the machine in the claim can be specifically identified (not any and all machines) is a factor in considering whether it is a ‘particular machine.’”
The MPEP further clarifies: “Whether its involvement is extra-solution activity or a field-of-use, i.e., the extent to which (or how) the machine or apparatus imposes meaningful limits on the claim. Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more.”
To learn more:
Adding a generic computer or generic computer components to a claim does not automatically make it patent-eligible. The MPEP 2106.05(b) provides clear guidance on this matter:
“Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection.”
This principle is based on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Bilski and Alice Corp. When evaluating claims with added generic computer elements, examiners should consider:
- Whether the added elements integrate the exception into a practical application
- Whether they provide significantly more than the judicial exception
It’s important to note that the rationale from Alappat, which suggested that an otherwise ineligible algorithm could be made patent-eligible by adding a generic computer, has been superseded by more recent Supreme Court decisions.
Applicants should focus on demonstrating how the computer elements contribute to the claim’s eligibility beyond merely performing generic computer functions.
To learn more:
Patent Procedure (2)
The “particular machine” consideration plays a significant role in the overall patent eligibility analysis, particularly in the context of the Alice/Mayo test. Here’s how it fits into the broader analysis:
- It’s part of Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test.
- In Step 2A Prong Two, it can help determine if the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application.
- In Step 2B, it can contribute to the “significantly more” analysis.
- A particular machine can potentially transform an abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
MPEP 2106.05(b) states: “The particularity or generality of the elements of the machine or apparatus, i.e., the degree to which the machine in the claim can be specifically identified (not any and all machines) is a factor in considering whether it is a ‘particular machine.’”
The MPEP further clarifies: “Whether its involvement is extra-solution activity or a field-of-use, i.e., the extent to which (or how) the machine or apparatus imposes meaningful limits on the claim. Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more.”
To learn more:
Adding a generic computer or generic computer components to a claim does not automatically make it patent-eligible. The MPEP 2106.05(b) provides clear guidance on this matter:
“Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection.”
This principle is based on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Bilski and Alice Corp. When evaluating claims with added generic computer elements, examiners should consider:
- Whether the added elements integrate the exception into a practical application
- Whether they provide significantly more than the judicial exception
It’s important to note that the rationale from Alappat, which suggested that an otherwise ineligible algorithm could be made patent-eligible by adding a generic computer, has been superseded by more recent Supreme Court decisions.
Applicants should focus on demonstrating how the computer elements contribute to the claim’s eligibility beyond merely performing generic computer functions.
To learn more: