What is the relationship between “mere instructions to apply an exception” and improvements to technology?

The concepts of “mere instructions to apply an exception” and improvements to technology are closely related in patent eligibility analysis. The MPEP 2106.05(f) explains this relationship:

“[A] claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.”

Key points to understand:

1. Opposing concepts: While “mere instructions to apply” generally leads to ineligibility, genuine improvements to technology can make a claim eligible.
2. Technological solution: Claims that provide a technological solution to a technological problem are more likely to be seen as improvements rather than mere instructions.
3. Specificity matters: The more specific the improvement and its implementation, the less likely it is to be considered mere instructions to apply.
4. Overlap in analysis: The improvement consideration often overlaps with the “mere instructions” analysis, as noted in MPEP 2106.05(f).

For example, in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., the court found that claims directed to a specific improvement in computer capabilities were not abstract ideas, contrasting with cases where computer implementation was merely incidental.

To avoid being characterized as mere instructions, claims should focus on specific technological improvements rather than simply implementing abstract ideas using generic computer components.

To learn more:

• patent eligibility
• technological improvements
• judicial exception
• abstract ideas