How does the streamlined analysis apply to claims involving improvements to technology or computer functionality?

The streamlined analysis is particularly applicable to claims involving clear improvements to technology or computer functionality. According to MPEP 2106.06(b): “As explained by the Federal Circuit, some improvements to technology or to computer functionality are not abstract when appropriately claimed, and thus claims to such improvements do not always need to undergo the full eligibility…

Read More

How does the streamlined analysis approach nature-based product claims?

The streamlined analysis approach to nature-based product claims focuses on whether the claim attempts to tie up the nature-based product. According to MPEP 2106.06(a): “A claim that recites a nature-based product, but clearly does not attempt to tie up the nature-based product, does not require a markedly different characteristics analysis to identify a ‘product of…

Read More

What are the statutory categories for patentable inventions under 35 U.S.C. 101?

According to 35 U.S.C. 101, there are four statutory categories for patentable inventions: Process Machine Manufacture Composition of matter The MPEP directly quotes the statute: “Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the…

Read More

What is the “specific utility” requirement in patent law?

The “specific utility” requirement in patent law refers to the need for an invention to provide a well-defined and particular benefit to the public. According to MPEP 2107.01: “A ‘specific utility’ is specific to the subject matter claimed and can ‘provide a well-defined and particular benefit to the public.’ In re Fisher, 421 F.3d 1365,…

Read More

Are software and business methods automatically considered abstract ideas?

No, software and business methods are not automatically considered abstract ideas. The MPEP clarifies: “It is clear from the body of judicial precedent that software and business methods are not excluded categories of subject matter. For example, the Supreme Court concluded that business methods are not “categorically outside of § 101’s scope,” stating that “a…

Read More