How does the use of a computer in a claim affect the “mere instructions to apply” analysis?

The use of a computer in a claim does not automatically make the claim eligible or ineligible. According to MPEP 2106.05(f), the key consideration is how the computer is used in the claim:

“Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.”

Here are some important points to consider:

  • Using a computer merely as a tool to perform an abstract idea is generally not enough to make a claim eligible.
  • Claiming improved computer capabilities or improvements to an existing technology may integrate the exception into a practical application.
  • The mere presence of a computer in the claim is not sufficient; the focus is on how the computer is used to implement the idea.
  • Claiming the inherent speed or efficiency of a computer without more is typically not enough to provide an inventive concept.

For example, in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, the Supreme Court found that implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer did not make the claim patent-eligible. However, in cases where the computer is integral to the claimed invention and provides a specific improvement in computer capabilities, the claim may be eligible.

To learn more:

Topics: MPEP 2100 - Patentability, MPEP 2106.05(F) - Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception, Patent Law, Patent Procedure
Tags: Abstract Ideas, Computer Implementation, Judicial Exception, Patent Eligibility