2100 Patentability

Another outline level in 2106.05(I)(A)

Add a "1," before "Limitations that the courts have found to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include: "

 

Add a "2." before "Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:"

 

 

 

If discussing Alice step B, in order to cite the MPEP for any particular class of limitation, one would have to quote like this:

 

"Assuming arguendo that the claimed floating point error correction method can still be considered as an algorithm not meeting step A, the claims meet step B because the claim expressly states the method is being performed on a pentium processor. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(Limitations that the courts have found to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include: )(iii)."

 

One cannot unambiguously cite as "MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(iii)" because that cite can also map to the concept of "adding insignficant extra-solution activity." Being able to distinguish "MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(1)(iii)" from "MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(2)(iii)" would be useful.

Tags

Voting

0 votes
0 up votes
0 down votes
Idea No. 239