# MPEP § 2106.05(a): Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or To Any Other Technology or Technical Field

> Federal · Agency guidance · In force

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/MPEP_S2106.05(a)

## Section

- **Citation:** MPEP § 2106.05(a)
- **Heading:** Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or To Any Other Technology or Technical Field
- **Jurisdiction:** Federal
- **Kind:** Agency guidance
- **Status:** In force
- **Text as of:** August 14, 2026
- **Source:** Compiled text
- **Location:** USPTO MPEP / Chapter 2100 - Patentability / MPEP § 2106.05(a)

## Text

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).

## Nearby sections

- [MPEP § 2103 Patent Examination Process](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/MPEP_S2103.md)
- [MPEP § 2104 Requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/MPEP_S2104.md)
- [MPEP § 2104.01 Barred by Atomic Energy Act](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/MPEP_S2104.01.md)
- [MPEP § 2105 Patent Eligible Subject Matter — Living Subject Matter](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/MPEP_S2105.md)
- [MPEP § 2106 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/MPEP_S2106.md)
- [MPEP § 2106.01 [Reserved]](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/MPEP_S2106.01.md)
- [MPEP § 2106.02 [Reserved]](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/MPEP_S2106.02.md)
- [MPEP § 2106.03 Eligibility Step 1: The Four Categories of Statutory Subject Matter](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/MPEP_S2106.03.md)
- [MPEP § 2106.04 Eligibility Step 2A: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/MPEP_S2106.04.md)
- [MPEP § 2106.04(a) Abstract Ideas](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/MPEP_S2106.04(a).md)
- [MPEP § 2106.04(a)(1) Examples of Claims That Do Not Recite Abstract Ideas](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/MPEP_S2106.04(a)(1).md)
- [MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) Abstract Idea Groupings](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/MPEP_S2106.04(a)(2).md)
- [MPEP § 2106.04(a)(3) Tentative Abstract Ideas](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/MPEP_S2106.04(a)(3).md)
- [MPEP § 2106.04(b) Laws of Nature, Natural Phenomena & Products of Nature](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/MPEP_S2106.04(b).md)

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/MPEP_S2106.05(a). Check the current official text before relying on it. Not legal advice.