Patent Law FAQ
This FAQ answers all your questions about patent law, patent procedure, and the patent examination process.
MPEP 2100 – Patentability (2)
The use of a computer in a claim does not automatically disqualify it from being considered a mental process. The MPEP provides guidance on how to evaluate such claims:
“Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea.”
When evaluating computer-implemented claims, examiners consider whether the claim:
- Recites a mental process performed on a generic computer
- Recites a mental process performed in a computer environment
- Uses a computer as a tool to perform a mental process
The MPEP provides examples for each scenario, such as:
- Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying results (Electric Power Group v. Alstom)
- Claiming a process of translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description (Synopsys v. Mentor Graphics)
The key is to determine whether the claim is directed to an improvement in computer functionality or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform a process that could be done mentally. The mere recitation of computer implementation is not enough to transform a mental process into a patent-eligible invention.
To learn more:
‘Mental processes’ are concepts that can be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. According to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2):
The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that ‘can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper’ to be an abstract idea.
Mental processes include:
- Observations
- Evaluations
- Judgments
- Opinions
Importantly, claims can recite a mental process even if they are performed on a computer. The MPEP states: “If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea.”
However, claims that cannot practically be performed in the human mind do not recite a mental process. For example, a claim to detecting suspicious activity by using network monitors and analyzing network packets would not be considered a mental process.
To learn more:
MPEP 2106.04(A) – Abstract Ideas (1)
The use of a computer in a claim does not automatically disqualify it from being considered a mental process. The MPEP provides guidance on how to evaluate such claims:
“Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea.”
When evaluating computer-implemented claims, examiners consider whether the claim:
- Recites a mental process performed on a generic computer
- Recites a mental process performed in a computer environment
- Uses a computer as a tool to perform a mental process
The MPEP provides examples for each scenario, such as:
- Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying results (Electric Power Group v. Alstom)
- Claiming a process of translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description (Synopsys v. Mentor Graphics)
The key is to determine whether the claim is directed to an improvement in computer functionality or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform a process that could be done mentally. The mere recitation of computer implementation is not enough to transform a mental process into a patent-eligible invention.
To learn more:
MPEP 2106.04(A)(2) – Abstract Idea Groupings (1)
‘Mental processes’ are concepts that can be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. According to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2):
The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that ‘can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper’ to be an abstract idea.
Mental processes include:
- Observations
- Evaluations
- Judgments
- Opinions
Importantly, claims can recite a mental process even if they are performed on a computer. The MPEP states: “If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea.”
However, claims that cannot practically be performed in the human mind do not recite a mental process. For example, a claim to detecting suspicious activity by using network monitors and analyzing network packets would not be considered a mental process.
To learn more:
Patent Law (2)
The use of a computer in a claim does not automatically disqualify it from being considered a mental process. The MPEP provides guidance on how to evaluate such claims:
“Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea.”
When evaluating computer-implemented claims, examiners consider whether the claim:
- Recites a mental process performed on a generic computer
- Recites a mental process performed in a computer environment
- Uses a computer as a tool to perform a mental process
The MPEP provides examples for each scenario, such as:
- Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying results (Electric Power Group v. Alstom)
- Claiming a process of translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description (Synopsys v. Mentor Graphics)
The key is to determine whether the claim is directed to an improvement in computer functionality or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform a process that could be done mentally. The mere recitation of computer implementation is not enough to transform a mental process into a patent-eligible invention.
To learn more:
‘Mental processes’ are concepts that can be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. According to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2):
The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that ‘can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper’ to be an abstract idea.
Mental processes include:
- Observations
- Evaluations
- Judgments
- Opinions
Importantly, claims can recite a mental process even if they are performed on a computer. The MPEP states: “If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea.”
However, claims that cannot practically be performed in the human mind do not recite a mental process. For example, a claim to detecting suspicious activity by using network monitors and analyzing network packets would not be considered a mental process.
To learn more:
Patent Procedure (2)
The use of a computer in a claim does not automatically disqualify it from being considered a mental process. The MPEP provides guidance on how to evaluate such claims:
“Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea.”
When evaluating computer-implemented claims, examiners consider whether the claim:
- Recites a mental process performed on a generic computer
- Recites a mental process performed in a computer environment
- Uses a computer as a tool to perform a mental process
The MPEP provides examples for each scenario, such as:
- Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying results (Electric Power Group v. Alstom)
- Claiming a process of translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description (Synopsys v. Mentor Graphics)
The key is to determine whether the claim is directed to an improvement in computer functionality or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform a process that could be done mentally. The mere recitation of computer implementation is not enough to transform a mental process into a patent-eligible invention.
To learn more:
‘Mental processes’ are concepts that can be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. According to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2):
The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that ‘can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper’ to be an abstract idea.
Mental processes include:
- Observations
- Evaluations
- Judgments
- Opinions
Importantly, claims can recite a mental process even if they are performed on a computer. The MPEP states: “If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea.”
However, claims that cannot practically be performed in the human mind do not recite a mental process. For example, a claim to detecting suspicious activity by using network monitors and analyzing network packets would not be considered a mental process.
To learn more: