How does the use of a computer affect the evaluation of mental processes as abstract ideas?

The use of a computer in a claim does not automatically disqualify it from being considered a mental process. The MPEP provides guidance on how to evaluate such claims:

“Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea.”

When evaluating computer-implemented claims, examiners consider whether the claim:

1. Recites a mental process performed on a generic computer
2. Recites a mental process performed in a computer environment
3. Uses a computer as a tool to perform a mental process

The MPEP provides examples for each scenario, such as:

• Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying results (Electric Power Group v. Alstom)
• Claiming a process of translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description (Synopsys v. Mentor Graphics)

The key is to determine whether the claim is directed to an improvement in computer functionality or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform a process that could be done mentally. The mere recitation of computer implementation is not enough to transform a mental process into a patent-eligible invention.

To learn more:

• mental processes
• computer-implemented claims
• abstract ideas
• patent eligibility