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

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.

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.