What is the difference between a claim limitation that can and cannot be practically performed in the human mind?
The distinction between claim limitations that can and cannot be practically performed in the human mind is crucial for determining whether a claim recites a mental process. According to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2):
Claims do not recite a mental process when they do not contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations.
Examples of limitations that cannot be practically performed in the human mind include:
- Calculating an absolute position of a GPS receiver and an absolute time of reception of satellite signals
- Detecting suspicious activity by using network monitors and analyzing network packets
- A specific data encryption method for computer communication involving several-step manipulation of data
On the other hand, examples of limitations that can be practically performed in the human mind include:
- Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis
- Comparing BRCA sequences and determining the existence of alterations
- Collecting and comparing known information
The key is to assess whether the human mind is equipped to perform the specific task described in the claim limitation, considering the complexity and nature of the operation.
To learn more: