How can a claim avoid being characterized as mere instructions to apply an exception?

This page is an FAQ based on guidance from the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure. It is provided as guidance, with links to the ground truth sources. This is information only: it is not legal advice.

To avoid being characterized as mere instructions to apply an exception, a claim should go beyond simply stating an abstract idea or judicial exception with generic implementation. The MPEP 2106.05(f) suggests several ways to achieve this:

1. Provide specific implementation details: Instead of reciting only the idea of a solution, include details of how the solution is accomplished.
2. Improve computer capabilities or existing technology: Claims that purport to improve computer capabilities or an existing technology may integrate the exception into a practical application.
3. Implement a particular solution to a problem: Claiming a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome may integrate the exception.
4. Add meaningful limitations: Include limitations that confine the judicial exception to a particular, practical application.

For example, in DDR Holdings, the court found the claims eligible because they specified how interactions with the Internet were manipulated to yield a desired result that overrode the routine and conventional sequence of events.

Similarly, in BASCOM, the court determined that the claimed combination of limitations provided a specific, discrete implementation of the abstract idea of filtering content, which was a “technology-based solution” that overcame existing problems.