# Presentation: 672998

## 35 USC 101 Update

**35 USC 101 Update**
**Business Methods Partnership Meeting, Spring 2008**
**by**
**Robert Weinhardt**
** ****Business Practice Specialist****, ****Technology Center 3600**
**robert.weinhardt@uspto.gov**

## Current Events in 101

**Two cases to be decided at the CAFC with 101 issues:**
***In re Bilski***** (2007-1130, oral arguments heard *****en banc***** May 8, 2008)**
***In re Ferguson***** (2007-1232, oral arguments heard December 5, 2007)**
***In re Nuijten***
**Petition for writ of *****certiorari***** filed by applicant to the Supreme Court.**** **

## Where are we now?

**USPTO’s Interim Guidelines on Subject Matter Eligibility are still in effect*.**
**The Guidelines were published in the O.G. 11/22/2005, incorporated into the MPEP in sections 2106-2106.02 as of the 8****th**** edition, Rev. 5, August 2006.**
*******However a clarification memo has been forwarded to the TC directors concerning “process” claims.**

## Where are we now?

**Overview of the clarification memo:**
**Promotes examination consistent with the Office’s position as presented in *****In re Bilski*****.**
**Limited scope – to assist examiners in determining whether a **_**method**_** claim qualifies as a patent eligible process in conjunction with the Guidelines when evaluating whether a claimed invention falls within a statutory category of invention.**
**See MPEP 2106.IV.B**

## Where are we now?

**Overview of the clarification memo:**
**Based on Supreme Court precedent and recent Federal Circuit decisions, the Office’s guidance to examiners is that a patent eligible process must:**
**Be tied to another statutory class (i.e. apparatus, article of manufacture, composition of matter), **_**OR**_
**Transform underlying subject matter such as articles or materials to a different state or thing.**
**If neither requirement is met the method is not a patent eligible process under 101.**

## Where are we now?

**Overview of the clarification memo:**
**Tips to qualify as a statutory process:**
_**Positively recite**_** the other statutory class to which the process is tied.**
_**Positively recite**_** the subject matter that is being transformed.**
**Claim interpretation rules apply.**
**“****Purely mental steps” would not qualify as a statutory process.**

## Where are we now?

**Overview of the clarification memo:**
**If the claimed method is determined to be a statutory subject matter eligible process, the 101 inquiry proceeds according to the Interim Guidelines.**
**In other words:**
**	****Determination of whether the claimed invention falls within a statutory category**
**  ****- is a separate inquiry from -  **
**	****Determination of whether the claimed invention falls within a judicial exception.**

## Overview of the Interim Guidelines

**Under the Guidelines, four main tests are applied to every claim:**
**Does the claimed invention fall within one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter?**
**Process*******
**Machine**
**Article of Manufacture**
**Composition of Matter**

## Overview of the Interim Guidelines (cont’d)

**Does the claimed invention fall within a judicial exception?**
**Laws of nature**
**Natural phenomena**
**Abstract ideas**
**       **

## Overview of the Interim Guidelines (cont’d)

**Does the claimed invention provide a practical application?**
**Practical application can be identified by:**
**The claimed invention “transforms” an article or physical object to a different state or thing; **_**or**_
**The claimed invention otherwise produces a useful, concrete and tangible result. **

**Notes:**
Transformation here is not exactly a duplicate of the first test, this is triggered if there is a judicial exception.

## Overview of the Interim Guidelines (cont’d)

**Does the claimed invention preempt a judicial exception?**
**If an invention is claimed so broadly so as to cover every substantial practical application of a judicial exception, then it would be considered “preemption” i.e. this would be effectively patenting the judicial exception.**
**Claim(s) that preempt a judicial exception are not eligible for patent protection under 35 USC 101. **

## What’s the proper format for “descriptive material” (e.g. “software”) claims?
MPEP 2106, 2106.01
No list of magic words
Two essential format components
Proper computer readable medium
Functional descriptive material

**MPEP 2106, 2106.01**
**No list of magic words**
**Two essential format components**
**Proper computer readable medium**
**Functional descriptive material**

- “Descriptive Material”

## Proper computer readable medium
No signals, or synonymous terms such as carrier waves, transmission media and the like. 
Functional descriptive material
Computer program
Data structure that meets the IEEE definition

**No signals, or synonymous terms such as carrier waves, transmission media and the like. **
**Functional descriptive material**
**Computer program**
**Data structure that meets the IEEE definition**

- “Descriptive Material”

## Example: “Beauregard” claims
In re Beauregard, 35 USPQ2d 1383
US patent # 5,710,578
Key elements of claim format found in claim 1:
“...computer usable medium having computer readable code means embodied therein...”
“...computer readable program code means for causing the computer to...”

***In re Beauregard*****, 35 USPQ2d 1383**
**US patent # 5,710,578**
**Key elements of claim format found in claim 1:**
**“...****computer usable medium having computer readable code means embodied therein...”**
**“...****computer readable program code means for causing the computer to...”**

- “Descriptive Material”

## Example: “Beauregard” claims

Key elements of claim format found in claim 10:

“...program storage device readable by a machine...”

“...embodying a program of instructions executable by the machine to perform...”

**Key elements of claim format found in claim 10:**
**“...****program storage device readable by a machine...”**
**“...****embodying a program of instructions executable by the machine to perform...”**

- “Descriptive Material”

## Thank You