How does insignificant extra-solution activity affect patent eligibility?
Insignificant extra-solution activity can negatively impact patent eligibility. According to MPEP 2106.05(g), “As explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional.” This means that adding such activities to a claim does not transform an unpatentable principle into…
Read MoreWhat is a classic example of a field of use limitation?
A classic example of a field of use limitation comes from the case Parker v. Flook, as cited in MPEP 2106.05(h). In this case, the claim recited steps for calculating an updated alarm limit value using a mathematical formula in the context of “a process comprising the catalytic chemical conversion of hydrocarbons.” The Supreme Court…
Read More