When should a full eligibility analysis be performed instead of using the streamlined approach?
According to MPEP § 2106.06(b), a full eligibility analysis should be performed when the claims present a “close call” regarding improvement to technology or computer functionality. The MPEP states: “If the claims are a “close call” such that it is unclear whether the claims improve technology or computer functionality, a full eligibility analysis should be…
Read MoreWhat are examples of “clear improvements” in patent eligibility?
The MPEP § 2106.06(b) provides several examples of “clear improvements” that can affect patent eligibility: Computer-related technology: “Claims directed to clear improvements to computer-related technology do not need the full eligibility analysis.” For example, claims to a self-referential table for a computer database were held eligible at step 1 of the Alice/Mayo test (Enfish case).…
Read MoreHow does the concept of “clear improvement” relate to the Alice/Mayo test?
The concept of “clear improvement” in MPEP § 2106.06(b) relates to the Alice/Mayo test by potentially allowing claims to bypass parts of the test. The MPEP states: “Although the Federal Circuit held these claims eligible at Step 2A as not being directed to abstract ideas, it would be reasonable for an examiner to have found…
Read MoreWhat is a “clear improvement” in patent eligibility?
A “clear improvement” in patent eligibility refers to improvements to technology or computer functionality that are not abstract when appropriately claimed. The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 2106.06(b) states: “As explained by the Federal Circuit, some improvements to technology or to computer functionality are not abstract when appropriately claimed, and thus claims to…
Read MoreHow does a “clear improvement” affect the patent eligibility analysis?
A “clear improvement” to technology or computer functionality can significantly simplify the patent eligibility analysis. According to MPEP § 2106.06(b): “In these cases, when the claims were viewed as a whole, their eligibility was self-evident based on the clear improvement, so no further analysis was needed.“ This means that if a claim demonstrates a clear…
Read More