Posts Tagged: "Patent Eligibility Guidance"

As an update to my posts from 2017 and 2019, it has now been more than six years since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2014 Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank decision. Still, the IP bar awaits a clear and reliable test to determine when exactly a software (or computer-implemented) claim is patentable versus being simply an abstract idea “free to all men and reserved exclusively to none.” The USPTO’s Section 101 guidelines interpreting Alice—and the accompanying 46 examples—have not cleared the confusion, and Alice continues to distract the USPTO, courts, and practitioners from focusing properly on Sections 102 (novelty) and 103 (obviousness). The net effects still being increased cost, lower patent quality, lower patent portfolio valuations, wasted patent reform lobbying dollars and, in many instances, the denial of patent protection for worthwhile software inventions.

On Thursday, October 17, the USPTO issued new patent eligibility guidance. The new guidance discusses and elaborates on the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (PEG) that was issued on January 7, 2019. The new guidance begins by stating that “all USPTO personnel are expected to follow the [PEG].” This statement is somewhat helpful given that some eligibility rejections still do not apply the PEG. After making the statement above, the guidance begins clarifying certain items from the PEG. In terms of Step 2A, Prong One regarding whether a claim “recites” a judicial exception, the guidance notes that a claim can recite more than one judicial exception. The judicial exceptions may be distinct in that there might be separate judicial exceptions in different claim elements. In other instances, there might be two judicial exceptions at play throughout the claim, in which case the examiner should identify the claim as reciting both and make the analysis clear on the record.

When the USPTO issued its 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance in January of this year, it seemed as if the patentability tides had finally shifted in favor of software applicants. Far less attention and fanfare, however, was afforded to the concurrently issued and unassuming Section 112 Guidelines on examination practice for computer-related and software claims. In particular, potential pitfalls awaiting software applicants may lie unforeseen in the requirement that “[f]or a computer-implemented 112(f) claim, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed computer function, or else the claim is indefinite.”