What are some examples that may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality?
The MPEP provides several examples that courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality. According to MPEP 2106.05(a), these include: Generating restaurant menus with functionally claimed features Accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer Mere automation…
Read MoreHow 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 MoreHow does insignificant computer implementation relate to insignificant extra-solution activity?
Insignificant computer implementation and insignificant extra-solution activity are related concepts in patent law, but they are treated slightly differently. The MPEP 2106.05(g) addresses this relationship: “Some cases have identified insignificant computer implementation as an example of insignificant extra-solution activity. See e.g., Fort Props., Inc. v. Am. Master Lease LLC, 671 F.3d 1317, 1323-24, 101 USPQ2d…
Read MoreWhat is the “improvements consideration” in patent eligibility analysis?
The “improvements consideration” is a key factor in determining patent eligibility under Step 2A Prong Two of the Alice/Mayo test. According to MPEP 2106.04(d)(1), it involves evaluating whether “the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field.” If such an improvement is demonstrated, the claim may be eligible…
Read MoreWhat constitutes an improvement to technology under patent eligibility?
An improvement to technology under patent eligibility can be demonstrated by showing that the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or any other technology/technical field. The MPEP states: “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…
Read MoreHow does “improvement to computer functionality” affect patent eligibility?
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…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO handle claims with multiple judicial exceptions?
When a claim recites multiple judicial exceptions, the USPTO recommends the following approach: If possible, treat the claim as containing a single judicial exception for efficiency. If the exceptions are distinct, select one exception for the eligibility analysis. If the exceptions are interrelated, consider the limitations together as a single abstract idea. As stated in…
Read MoreHow does adding a generic computer to a claim affect patent eligibility?
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…
Read MoreCan a general-purpose computer ever qualify as a “particular machine” for patent eligibility?
While a general-purpose computer is typically not considered a “particular machine” for patent eligibility purposes, there are circumstances where it might qualify. The key is how the computer is programmed and used in the claimed invention. Here are some considerations: A general-purpose computer programmed to perform specific functions may be considered a particular machine. The…
Read MoreWhat are the four statutory categories of patent-eligible subject matter?
The four statutory categories of patent-eligible subject matter, as defined in 35 U.S.C. 101, are: Processes Machines Manufactures Compositions of matter As stated in the MPEP, “The latter three categories define ‘things’ or ‘products’ while the first category defines ‘actions’ (i.e., inventions that consist of a series of steps or acts to be performed).” To…
Read More