Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or To Any Other Technology or Technical Field

In determining patent eligibility, examiners should

consider whether the claim “purport(s) to improve the functioning of the computer

itself” or “any other technology or technical field.”

Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd.

v. CLS Bank Int’l,

573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). This

consideration has also been referred to as the search for a technological solution to

a technological problem. See e.g.,

DDR Holdings, LLC. v. Hotels.com,

L.P.,

773 F.3d 1245, 1257, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1105 (Fed. Cir. 2014);

Amdocs (Israel), Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc.,

841 F.3d 1288,

1300-01, 120 USPQ2d 1527, 1537 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

While improvements were evaluated in

Alice

Corp.

as relevant to the search for an inventive concept (Step 2B),

several decisions of the Federal Circuit have also evaluated this consideration when

determining whether a claim was directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A). See,

e.g.,

Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,

822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36,

118 USPQ2d 1684, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 2016);

McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am.

Inc.,

837 F.3d 1299, 1314-16, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1102-03 (Fed. Cir. 2016);

Visual Memory, LLC v. NVIDIA Corp.,

867 F.3d 1253, 1259-60, 123

USPQ2d 1712, 1717 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Thus, an examiner should evaluate whether a claim

contains an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology

or technical field at Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, as well as when considering

whether the claim has such self-evident eligibility that it qualifies for the

streamlined analysis. See

MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1)

for more

information about evaluating improvements in Step 2A Prong Two, and

MPEP

§ 2106.07(b)

for more information about improvements in the

streamlined analysis context.

If it is asserted that the invention improves upon

conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or

technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention

should be present in the specification

bout evaluating improvements in Step 2A Prong Two, and

MPEP

§ 2106.07(b)

for more information about improvements in the

streamlined analysis context.

If it is asserted that the invention improves upon

conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or

technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention

should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide

sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the

claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly

set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the

improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the

specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e.,

a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a

person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim

improves technology. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement

can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and

explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim,

or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. For

example, in

McRO,

the court relied on the specification’s

explanation of how the particular rules recited in the claim enabled the automation

of specific animation tasks that previously could only be performed subjectively by

humans, when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer

animation instead of an abstract idea.

McRO,

837 F.3d at 1313-14,

120 USPQ2d at 1100-01. In contrast, the court in

Affinity Labs of Tex. v

fication’s

explanation of how the particular rules recited in the claim enabled the automation

of specific animation tasks that previously could only be performed subjectively by

humans, when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer

animation instead of an abstract idea.

McRO,

837 F.3d at 1313-14,

120 USPQ2d at 1100-01. In contrast, the court in

Affinity Labs of Tex. v.

DirecTV, LLC

relied on the specification’s failure to provide details

regarding the manner in which the invention accomplished the alleged improvement when

holding the claimed methods of delivering broadcast content to cellphones ineligible.

838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

After the examiner has consulted the specification

and determined that the disclosed invention improves technology, the claim must be

evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in

technology.

Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp.,

838

F.3d 1307, 1316, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (patent owner argued that the

claimed email filtering system improved technology by shrinking the protection gap

and mooting the volume problem, but the court disagreed because the claims themselves

did not have any limitations that addressed these issues). That is, the claim must

include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement

described in the specification. However, the claim itself does not need to explicitly

recite the improvement described in the specification (

e.g.,

“thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel”). The full scope of the claim under

the BRI should be considered to determine if the claim reflects an improvement in

technology (

e.g.,

the improvement described in the specification)

e the improvement

described in the specification. However, the claim itself does not need to explicitly

recite the improvement described in the specification (

e.g.,

“thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel”). The full scope of the claim under

the BRI should be considered to determine if the claim reflects an improvement in

technology (

e.g.,

the improvement described in the specification).

In making this determination, it is critical that examiners look at the claim “as a

whole,” in other words, the claim should be evaluated “as an ordered combination,

without ignoring the requirements of the individual steps.” When performing this

evaluation, examiners should be “careful to avoid oversimplifying the claims” by

looking at them generally and failing to account for the specific requirements of the

claims.

McRO,

837 F.3d at 1313, 120 USPQ2d at 1100.

An important consideration in determining whether a

claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular

solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to

merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome.

McRO,

837 F.3d

at 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d at 1102-03;

DDR Holdings,

773 F.3d at 1259,

113 USPQ2d at 1107. In this respect, the improvement consideration overlaps with

other considerations, specifically the particular machine consideration (see

MPEP

§ 2106.05(b)

), and the mere instructions to apply an

exception consideration (see

MPEP § 2106.05(f)

). Thus, evaluation

of those other considerations may assist examiners in making a determination of

whether a claim satisfies the improvement consideration.

It is important to note, the judicial exception alone

cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more

additional elements. See the discussion of

Diamond v. Diehr

, 450

U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981)) in subsection II, below. In

addition, the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination

with the recited judicial exception

n.

It is important to note, the judicial exception alone

cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more

additional elements. See the discussion of

Diamond v. Diehr

, 450

U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981)) in subsection II, below. In

addition, the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination

with the recited judicial exception. See

MPEP §

2106.04(d)

(discussing

Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat

Sys., Inc.,

879 F.3d 1299, 1303-04, 125 USPQ2d 1282, 1285-87 (Fed. Cir.

2018)). Thus, it is important for examiners to analyze the claim as a whole when

determining whether the claim provides an improvement to the functioning of computers

or an improvement to other technology or technical field.

During examination, the examiner should analyze the

“improvements” consideration by evaluating the specification and the claims to ensure

that a technical explanation of the asserted improvement is present in the

specification, and that the claim reflects the asserted improvement. Generally,

examiners are not expected to make a qualitative judgement on the merits of the

asserted improvement. If the examiner concludes the disclosed invention does not

improve technology, the burden shifts to applicant to provide persuasive arguments

supported by any necessary evidence to demonstrate that one of ordinary skill in the

art would understand that the disclosed invention improves technology. Any such

evidence submitted under

37 CFR 1.132

must establish what

the specification would convey to one of ordinary skill in the art and cannot be used

to supplement the specification. See,

e.g.

MPEP §

716.09

on

37 CFR 1.132

practice with

respect to rejections under

35 U.S.C. 112(a)

. For example, in

response to a rejection under

35 U.S.C. 101

, an applicant could

submit a declaration under

§ 1.132

providing testimony on

how one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the disclosed invention as

improving technology and the underlying factual basis for that conclusion.

I

on. See,

e.g.

MPEP §

716.09

on

37 CFR 1.132

practice with

respect to rejections under

35 U.S.C. 112(a)

. For example, in

response to a rejection under

35 U.S.C. 101

, an applicant could

submit a declaration under

§ 1.132

providing testimony on

how one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the disclosed invention as

improving technology and the underlying factual basis for that conclusion.

I.

IMPROVEMENTS TO COMPUTER

FUNCTIONALITY

In computer-related technologies, the examiner

should determine whether the claim purports to improve computer capabilities or,

instead, invokes computers merely as a tool.

Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft

Corp.,

822 F.3d 1327, 1336, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

In

Enfish,

the court evaluated the patent eligibility of claims

related to a self-referential database.

Id.

The court concluded

the claims were not directed to an abstract idea, but rather an improvement to

computer functionality.

Id.

It was the specification’s

discussion of the prior art and how the invention improved the way the computer

stores and retrieves data in memory in combination with the specific data

structure recited in the claims that demonstrated eligibility. 822 F.3d at 1339,

118 USPQ2d at 1691. The claim was not simply the addition of general purpose

computers added post-hoc to an abstract idea, but a specific implementation of a

solution to a problem in the software arts. 822 F.3d at 1339, 118 USPQ2d at

1691.

Examples that the courts have indicated may show

an improvement in computer-functionality:

i. A modification of conventional Internet

hyperlink protocol to dynamically produce a dual-source hybrid webpage,

DDR Holdings,

773 F.3d at 1258-59, 113 USPQ2d at

1106-07;

ii. Inventive distribution of functionality

within a network to filter Internet content,

BASCOM Global Internet

v. AT&T Mobility LLC,

827 F.3d 1341, 1350-51, 119 USPQ2d

1236, 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2016);

iii. A method of rendering a halftone digital

image,

Research Corp. Techs. v

rlink protocol to dynamically produce a dual-source hybrid webpage,

DDR Holdings,

773 F.3d at 1258-59, 113 USPQ2d at

1106-07;

ii. Inventive distribution of functionality

within a network to filter Internet content,

BASCOM Global Internet

v. AT&T Mobility LLC,

827 F.3d 1341, 1350-51, 119 USPQ2d

1236, 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2016);

iii. A method of rendering a halftone digital

image,

Research Corp. Techs. v. Microsoft Corp.,

627 F.3d

859, 868-69, 97 USPQ2d 1274, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2010);

iv. A distributed network architecture operating

in an unconventional fashion to reduce network congestion while generating

networking accounting data records,

Amdocs (Israel), Ltd. v. Openet

Telecom, Inc.,

841 F.3d 1288, 1300-01, 120 USPQ2d 1527, 1536-37

(Fed. Cir. 2016);

v. A memory system having programmable

operational characteristics that are configurable based on the type of

processor, which can be used with different types of processors without a

tradeoff in processor performance,

Visual Memory, LLC v. NVIDIA

Corp.,

867 F.3d 1253, 1259-60, 123 USPQ2d 1712, 1717 (Fed. Cir.

2017);

vi. Technical details as to how to transmit

images over a cellular network or append classification information to

digital image data,

TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto.

LLC,

823 F.3d 607, 614-15, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1749-50 (Fed. Cir.

2016) (holding the claims ineligible because they fail to provide requisite

technical details necessary to carry out the function);

vii. Particular structure of a server that stores

organized digital images,

TLI Communications,

823 F.3d at

612, 118 USPQ2d at 1747 (finding the use of a generic server insufficient to

add inventive concepts to an abstract idea);

viii. A particular way of programming or designing

software to create menus,

Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc.,

842 F.3d 1229, 1241, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1854 (Fed. Cir. 2016);

ix

ii. Particular structure of a server that stores

organized digital images,

TLI Communications,

823 F.3d at

612, 118 USPQ2d at 1747 (finding the use of a generic server insufficient to

add inventive concepts to an abstract idea);

viii. A particular way of programming or designing

software to create menus,

Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc.,

842 F.3d 1229, 1241, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1854 (Fed. Cir. 2016);

ix. A method that generates a security profile

that identifies both hostile and potentially hostile operations, and can

protect the user against both previously unknown viruses and "obfuscated

code," which is an improvement over traditional virus scanning.

Finjan Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems,

879 F.3d 1299, 1304,

125 USPQ2d 1282, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2018);

x. An improved user interface for electronic

devices that displays an application summary of unlaunched applications,

where the particular data in the summary is selectable by a user to launch

the respective application.

Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L., v. LG

Electronics, Inc.,

880 F.3d 1356, 1362-63, 125 USPQ2d 1436,

1440-41 (Fed. Cir. 2018);

xi. Specific interface and implementation for

navigating complex three-dimensional spreadsheets using techniques unique to

computers;

Data Engine Techs., LLC v. Google LLC,

906

F.3d 999, 1009, 128 USPQ2d 1381, 1387 (Fed. Cir. 2018); and

xii. A specific method of restricting software

operation within a license,

Ancora Tech., Inc. v. HTC America,

Inc.,

908 F.3d 1343, 1345-46, 128 USPQ2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir.

2018).

It is important to note that in order for a method

claim to improve computer functionality, the broadest reasonable interpretation of

the claim must be limited to computer implementation. That is, a claim whose

entire scope can be performed mentally, cannot be said to improve computer

technology.

Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp.,

839 F.3d

1138, 120 USPQ2d 1473 (Fed. Cir

67 (Fed. Cir.

2018).

It is important to note that in order for a method

claim to improve computer functionality, the broadest reasonable interpretation of

the claim must be limited to computer implementation. That is, a claim whose

entire scope can be performed mentally, cannot be said to improve computer

technology.

Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp.,

839 F.3d

1138, 120 USPQ2d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (a method of translating a logic circuit

into a hardware component description of a logic circuit was found to be

ineligible because the method did not employ a computer and a skilled artisan

could perform all the steps mentally). Similarly, a claimed process covering

embodiments that can be performed on a computer, as well as embodiments that can

be practiced verbally or with a telephone, cannot improve computer technology. See

RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co.,

855 F.3d 1322, 1328, 122

USPQ2d 1377, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (process for encoding/decoding facial data

using image codes assigned to particular facial features held ineligible because

the process did not require a computer).

Examples that the courts have indicated may not be

sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality:

i. Generating restaurant menus with

functionally claimed features,

Ameranth,

842 F.3d at

1245, 120 USPQ2d at 1857;

ii. Accelerating a process of analyzing audit

log data when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a

general-purpose computer,

FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys.,

839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016);

iii. Mere automation of manual processes, such as

using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase,

Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services,

859 F.3d

1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) or speeding up a

loan-application process by enabling borrowers to avoid physically going to

or calling each lender and filling out a loan application,

LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc.,

656 Fed. App'x 991,

996-97 (Fed. Cir

generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase,

Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services,

859 F.3d

1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) or speeding up a

loan-application process by enabling borrowers to avoid physically going to

or calling each lender and filling out a loan application,

LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc.,

656 Fed. App'x 991,

996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential);

iv. Recording, transmitting, and archiving

digital images by use of conventional or generic technology in a nascent but

well-known environment, without any assertion that the invention reflects an

inventive solution to any problem presented by combining a camera and a

cellular telephone,

TLI Communications,

823 F.3d at

611-12, 118 USPQ2d at 1747;

v. Affixing a barcode to a mail object in order

to more reliably identify the sender and speed up mail processing, without

any limitations specifying the technical details of the barcode or how it is

generated or processed,

Secured Mail Solutions, LLC v. Universal

Wilde, Inc.,

873 F.3d 905, 910-11, 124 USPQ2d 1502, 1505-06

(Fed. Cir. 2017);

vi. Instructions to display two sets of

information on a computer display in a non-interfering manner, without any

limitations specifying how to achieve the desired result,

Interval

Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.,

896 F.3d 1335, 1344-45, 127 USPQ2d

1553, 1559-60 (Fed. Cir. 2018);

vii. Providing historical usage information to

users while they are inputting data, in order to improve the quality and

organization of information added to a database, because “an improvement to

the information stored by a database is not equivalent to an improvement in

the database’s functionality,”

BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons,

Inc.,

899 F.3d 1281, 1287-88, 127 USPQ2d 1688, 1693-94 (Fed.

Cir. 2018); and

viii. Arranging transactional information on a

graphical user interface in a manner that assists traders in processing

information more quickly,

Trading Technologies v. IBG

LLC,

921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir.

2019).

II

t to an improvement in

the database’s functionality,”

BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons,

Inc.,

899 F.3d 1281, 1287-88, 127 USPQ2d 1688, 1693-94 (Fed.

Cir. 2018); and

viii. Arranging transactional information on a

graphical user interface in a manner that assists traders in processing

information more quickly,

Trading Technologies v. IBG

LLC,

921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir.

2019).

II.

IMPROVEMENTS TO ANY OTHER

TECHNOLOGY OR TECHNICAL FIELD

The courts have also found that improvements in

technology beyond computer functionality may demonstrate patent eligibility. In

McRO,

the Federal Circuit held claimed methods of automatic

lip synchronization and facial expression animation using computer-implemented

rules to be patent eligible under

35 U.S.C. 101

, because they

were not directed to an abstract idea.

McRO,

837 F.3d at 1316,

120 USPQ2d at 1103. The basis for the

McRO

court's decision was

that the claims were directed to an improvement in computer animation and thus did

not recite a concept similar to previously identified abstract ideas.

Id.

The court relied on the specification's explanation of

how the claimed rules enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that

previously could not be automated. 837 F.3d at 1313, 120 USPQ2d at 1101. The

McRO

court indicated that it was the incorporation of the

particular claimed rules in computer animation that "improved [the] existing

technological process", unlike cases such as

Alice

where a

computer was merely used as a tool to perform an existing process. 837 F.3d at

1314, 120 USPQ2d at 1102. The

McRO

court also noted that the

claims at issue described a specific way (use of particular rules to set morph

weights and transitions through phonemes) to solve the problem of producing

accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated

characters, rather than merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome, and

thus were not directed to an abstract idea. 837 F.3d at 1313, 120 USPQ2d at 1101

hat the

claims at issue described a specific way (use of particular rules to set morph

weights and transitions through phonemes) to solve the problem of producing

accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated

characters, rather than merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome, and

thus were not directed to an abstract idea. 837 F.3d at 1313, 120 USPQ2d at 1101.

Consideration of improvements is relevant to the

eligibility analysis regardless of the technology of the claimed invention. That

is, the consideration applies equally whether it is a computer-implemented

invention, an invention in the life sciences, or any other technology. See,

e.g., Rapid Litigation Management v. CellzDirect, Inc.,

827

F.3d 1042, 119 USPQ2d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2016), in which the court noted that a

claimed process for preserving hepatocytes could be eligible as an improvement to

technology because the claim achieved a new and improved way for preserving

hepatocyte cells for later use, even though the claim is based on the discovery of

something natural. Notably, the court did not distinguish between the types of

technology when determining the invention improved technology. However, it is

important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself

(

e.g.

a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an

improvement in technology. For example, in

Trading Technologies Int’l v.

IBG,

921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the

court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with

more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process

of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.

Examples that the courts have indicated may be

sufficient to show an improvement in existing technology include:

i

F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the

court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with

more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process

of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.

Examples that the courts have indicated may be

sufficient to show an improvement in existing technology include:

i. Particular computerized method of operating

a rubber molding press,

e.g.,

a modification of

conventional rubber-molding processes to utilize a thermocouple inside the

mold to constantly monitor the temperature and thus reduce under- and

over-curing problems common in the art,

Diamond v. Diehr,

450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 8 and 10 (1981);

ii. New telephone, server, or combination

thereof,

TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC,

823 F.3d

607, 612, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1747 (Fed. Cir. 2016);

iii. An advance in the process of downloading

content for streaming,

Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV,

LLC,

838 F.3d 1253, 1256, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1202 (Fed. Cir.

2016);

iv. Improved, particular method of digital data

compression,

DDR Holdings, LLC. v. Hotels.com, L.P.,

773

F.3d 1245, 1259, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1107 (Fed. Cir. 2014);

Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp.,

838 F.3d

1307, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016);

v. Particular method of incorporating virus

screening into the Internet,

Symantec Corp.,

838 F.3d at

1321-22, 120 USPQ2d at 1362-63;

vi. Components or methods, such as measurement

devices or techniques, that generate new data,

Electric Power

Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A.,

830 F.3d 1350, 1355, 119 USPQ2d

1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);

vii. Particular configuration of inertial sensors

and a particular method of using the raw data from the sensors,

Thales Visionix, Inc. v. United States,

850 F.3d 1343,

1348-49, 121 USPQ2d 1898, 1902 (Fed. Cir. 2017);

viii

thods, such as measurement

devices or techniques, that generate new data,

Electric Power

Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A.,

830 F.3d 1350, 1355, 119 USPQ2d

1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);

vii. Particular configuration of inertial sensors

and a particular method of using the raw data from the sensors,

Thales Visionix, Inc. v. United States,

850 F.3d 1343,

1348-49, 121 USPQ2d 1898, 1902 (Fed. Cir. 2017);

viii. A specific, structured graphical user

interface that improves the accuracy of trader transactions by displaying

bid and asked prices in a particular manner that prevents order entry at a

changed price,

Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. CQG, Inc.,

675 Fed. App'x 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (non-precedential); and

ix. Improved process for preserving hepatocytes

for later use,

Rapid Litig. Mgmt. v. CellzDirect, Inc.,

827 F.3d 1042, 1050, 119 USPQ2d 1370, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

To show that the involvement of a computer assists

in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a

computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the

significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic

computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must

include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component

or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. See

MPEP § 2106.05(f)

for more information about mere

instructions to apply an exception.

Examples that the courts have indicated may not be

sufficient to show an improvement to technology include:

i. A commonplace business method being applied

on a general purpose computer,

Alice Corp.,

573 U.S. at

223, 110 USPQ2d at 1976;

Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am.,

Inc.,

793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir.

2015);

ii. Using well-known standard laboratory

techniques to detect enzyme levels in a bodily sample such as blood or

plasma,

Cleveland Clinic Foundation v

echnology include:

i. A commonplace business method being applied

on a general purpose computer,

Alice Corp.,

573 U.S. at

223, 110 USPQ2d at 1976;

Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am.,

Inc.,

793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir.

2015);

ii. Using well-known standard laboratory

techniques to detect enzyme levels in a bodily sample such as blood or

plasma,

Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. True Health Diagnostics,

LLC,

859 F.3d 1352, 1355, 1362, 123 USPQ2d 1081, 1082-83, 1088

(Fed. Cir. 2017);

iii. Gathering and analyzing information using

conventional techniques and displaying the result,

TLI

Communications,

823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48;

iv. Delivering broadcast content to a portable

electronic device such as a cellular telephone, when claimed at a high level

of generality,

Affinity Labs of Tex. v. Amazon.com,

838

F.3d 1266, 1270, 120 USPQ2d 1210, 1213 (Fed. Cir. 2016);

Affinity

Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC,

838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d

1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016);

v. A general method of screening emails on a

generic computer,

Symantec,

838 F.3d at 1315-16, 120

USPQ2d at 1358-59;

vi. An advance in the informational content of a

download for streaming,

Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV,

LLC,

838 F.3d 1253, 1263, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1208 (Fed. Cir.

2016); and

vii. Selecting one type of content

(

e.g.,

FM radio content) from within a range of

existing broadcast content types, or selecting a particular generic function

for computer hardware to perform (e.g., buffering content) from within a

range of well-known, routine, conventional functions performed by the

hardware,

Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC,

838 F.3d

1253, 1264, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1208 (Fed. Cir. 2016).