Can a combination of well-understood, routine, conventional elements be patent eligible?
Yes, a combination of well-understood, routine, conventional elements can potentially be patent eligible. The MPEP 2106.05(d) states: “Even if one or more additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity when considered individually, the combination of additional elements may amount to an inventive concept.” This principle is supported by case law. For example, in BASCOM Global…
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 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 MoreCan a claim involving an abstract idea still be patent-eligible?
Yes, a claim involving an abstract idea can still be patent-eligible. The MPEP clarifies this point: “Some claims are not directed to an abstract idea because they do not recite an abstract idea, although it may be apparent that at some level they are based on or involve an abstract idea.” This statement from MPEP…
Read MoreHow does the particularity or generality of a claim affect the “mere instructions to apply” analysis?
The particularity or generality of a claim is an important factor in determining whether it constitutes “mere instructions to apply an exception.” The MPEP 2106.05(f) provides guidance on this aspect: “A claim having broad applicability across many fields of endeavor may not provide meaningful limitations that integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or…
Read MoreWhat is the difference between a claim limitation that can and cannot be practically performed in the human mind?
The distinction between claim limitations that can and cannot be practically performed in the human mind is crucial for determining whether a claim recites a mental process. According to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): Claims do not recite a mental process when they do not contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, for instance…
Read MoreWhat types of characteristics are considered in the markedly different characteristics analysis?
The markedly different characteristics analysis considers various types of characteristics when comparing a claimed nature-based product to its naturally occurring counterpart. According to MPEP 2106.04(c), these characteristics can include, but are not limited to: Chemical properties Physical properties Functional properties Structure and form Biological or pharmacological properties The MPEP provides guidance on this analysis: “Markedly…
Read MoreWhat are “certain methods of organizing human activity” in patent law?
“Certain methods of organizing human activity” is one of the categories of abstract ideas identified by the courts and discussed in MPEP 2106.04(a). This category encompasses various types of human activities that have been deemed abstract. The MPEP states: “The phrase “methods of organizing human activity” is used to describe concepts relating to: fundamental economic…
Read MoreWhat are the four categories of inventions eligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. 101?
According to MPEP 2104, the four categories of inventions eligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. 101 are: Processes Machines Manufactures Compositions of matter The MPEP states: “35 U.S.C. 101 enumerates four categories of subject matter that Congress deemed to be appropriate subject matter for a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter.” These…
Read MoreHow does the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) affect patent eligibility analysis?
The broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) plays a crucial role in patent eligibility analysis. The MPEP states: “It is essential that the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim be established prior to examining a claim for eligibility. The BRI sets the boundaries of the coverage sought by the claim and will influence whether the claim…
Read More