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

How does the “particular machine” consideration apply to internet and software-related inventions?

The “particular machine” consideration for internet and software-related inventions requires careful analysis. These inventions often rely on general-purpose computers or networks, which may not inherently qualify as particular machines. Here’s how the consideration applies: The focus is on how the claimed invention uses the computer or network, not just the presence of these components. Software…

Read More

How are computer-implemented means-plus-function limitations interpreted?

For computer-implemented means-plus-function limitations, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed function. The MPEP states: “For a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).“ A general-purpose computer is not sufficient…

Read More

What are the implications of the Alice/Mayo framework for software and business method patents?

The Alice/Mayo framework, as discussed in MPEP 2106, has significant implications for software and business method patents. This framework, established by the Supreme Court decisions in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International and Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., has made it more challenging to obtain patents for certain types of software and business…

Read More