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

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 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.