What are examples of claims that improve technology and are not directed to a judicial exception?
The MPEP provides several examples of claims that improve technology and are not directed to a judicial exception. These examples demonstrate how courts have found certain claims to be patent-eligible due to their technological improvements:
- Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.: Claims to a self-referential table for a computer database were found to be an improvement in computer capabilities.
- McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc.: Claims to automatic lip synchronization and facial expression animation were considered an improvement in computer-related technology.
- Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp.: Claims to an enhanced computer memory system were directed to an improvement in computer capabilities.
- Finjan Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc.: Claims to virus scanning were found to be an improvement in computer technology.
- SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.: Claims to detecting suspicious activity by using network monitors and analyzing network packets were found to be an improvement in computer network technology.
These examples illustrate how claims that improve the functioning of a computer or other technology can be eligible at Step 2A Prong Two of the patent eligibility analysis.
To learn more:
Topics:
MPEP 2100 - Patentability,
MPEP 2106.04(D) - Integration Of A Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application,
Patent Law,
Patent Procedure