# ^[Successfully\ Preparing\ and\ Prosecuting\ a\ Business\ Method\ Patent\ Application]{#_Toc510347288}\ ^

**^Presented\ at\ AIPLA^**

**^Spring\ 2001^**

# ^[By]{#_Toc510347289}^

# ^[John\ J.\ Love]{#_Toc510347290}^

# ^[Wynn\ W.\ Coggins]{#_Toc510347291}^  

**I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY**

^There\ has\ recently\ been\ a\ marked\ increase\ in\ public\ attention\ to\ the\ operations\ of\ the\ United\ States\ Patent\ and\ Trademark\ Office\ (USPTO),\ and\ specifically,\ areas\ that\ examine\ patent\ applications\ related\ to\ business\ method\ inventions.\ There\ has\ been\ some\ confusion,\ however,\ in\ the\ patent\ community\ over\ what\ constitutes\ a\ business\ method\ claim.\ "Business\ method"\ is\ a\ generic\ term\ that\ has\ been\ used\ by\ many\ to\ describe\ various\ types\ of\ process\ claims.\ The\ Federal\ Circuit\ has\ not\ yet\ defined\ what\ it\ is\ that\ specifically\ characterizes\ a\ business\ method\ claim\ and\ separates\ it\ from\ other\ process\ claims.\ The\ Court\ has,\ however,\ stated\ that\ claims\ drawn\ to\ a\ method\ of\ doing\ business\ should\ not\ be\ categorized\ as\ a\ "business\ method"\ claim,\ instead\ they\ should\ be\ treated\ like\ any\ other\ process\ claim.\ ^*^State\ Street\ Bank\ &\ Trust\ Co.\ v.\ Signature\ Financial\ Group,\ Inc^*^.\ 47\ USPQ2d\ 1596,\ 1604\ (Fed,\ Cir.\ 1998).\ ^

^The\ one\ area\ in\ particular\ that\ receives\ the\ bulk\ of\ the\ public\ attention\ related\ to\ business\ method-type\ applications\ is\ the\ workgroup\ responsible\ for\ examining\ patent\ applications\ in\ automated\ business\ data\ processing\ technologies,\ U.S.\ Class\ 705.\ This\ area\ has\ experienced\ substantial\ growth\ recently\ in\ response\ to\ rapidly\ developing\ technologies\ related\ to\ e-commerce\ and\ the\ Internet.\ The\ majority\ of\ business\ method\ related\ applications\ are\ filed\ in\ this\ area\ since\ the\ methods\ claimed\ in\ these\ applications\ are\ somehow\ related\ to\ financial\ data\ processing.\ However,\ not\ all\ business\ method\ claims\ are\ classified\ in\ Class\ 705.\ For\ example,\ methods\ of\ teaching\ are\ classified\ in\ Class\ 434,\ Education\ and\ Demonstration.\ Methods\ of\ playing\ games\ are\ classified\ in\ Class\ 273,\ Amusement\ Devices,\ Games.\ Methods\ of\ improving\ crop\ yields\ are\ classified\ in\ Class\ 47,\ Plant\ Husbandry.\ These\ are\ only\ a\ few\ examples.\ Other\ process\ claims\ which\ may\ be\ labeled\ a\ "business\ method"\ are\ classified\ and\ examined\ according\ to\ their\ technology.\ ^

^On\ March\ 29,\ 2000,\ the\ USPTO\ announced\ an\ Action\ Plan\ for\ business\ method\ patents\ to\ improve\ the\ quality\ of\ the\ examination\ process\ in\ technologies\ related\ to\ electronic\ commerce\ and\ business\ methods.\ These\ initiatives\ have\ provided\ a\ forum\ through\ which\ mutual\ concerns,\ problems\ and\ possible\ solutions\ are\ being\ discussed,\ and\ USPTO\ operational\ efforts\ in\ this\ technology\ area\ are\ being\ shared.\ Feedback\ on\ prior\ art\ resources\ is\ also\ being\ gathered\ and\ input\ on\ expanding\ non-patent\ literature\ (NPL)\ information\ collections\ and\ databases\ is\ being\ solicited.\ There\ has\ been\ active\ discussion\ on\ these\ initiatives\ since\ their\ inception,\ and\ they\ will\ not\ be\ the\ focus\ of\ this\ paper.^

^Instead,\ this\ paper\ defines\ the\ specific\ technologies\ that\ are\ examined\ in\ Technology\ Center\ 2100,\ explains\ the\ specific\ business\ method\ topics\ that\ are\ examined\ in\ Class\ 705,\ discusses\ the\ definition\ of\ Class\ 705,\ and\ gives\ guidance\ on\ successfully\ preparing\ and\ prosecuting\ a\ business\ method\ application\ classified\ in\ Class\ 705.\ ^

# ^[II.\ KNOW\ THE\ ORGANIZATION]{#_Toc510347292}^

^As\ with\ any\ large\ group\ or\ organization,\ knowing\ the\ right\ contact\ point\ is\ critical\ to\ getting\ questions\ answered\ and\ problems\ resolved.\ Table\ 1\ illustrates\ how\ Technology\ Center\ (TC)\ 2100\ is\ divided\ by\ technology\ and\ assigns\ the\ individual\ TC\ Directors\ to\ their\ areas\ of\ responsibility.\ Table\ 2\ illustrates\ how\ workgroup\ 2160\ (\"business\ methods\")\ is\ divided\ by\ technology\ and\ assigns\ the\ individual\ Supervisory\ Patent\ Examiners\ (SPEs)\ to\ their\ areas\ of\ responsibility.\ ^

**^Table\ 1^**

+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| # ^[[Technology\ Center\ 2100]{#_Toc510347293}]{.underl              |
| ine}^ ^Computer\ Architecture,\ Software\ and\ Electronic\ Commerce^ |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                                                                      |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ## ^[[Peggy\ Focarino\ -\ Di                                         |
| rector]{#_Toc510347294}]{.underline}[\ (703)\ 306-5484]{.underline}^ |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ^¨\ ^                                                                |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 0.  ^Workgroup\ 2120\ -\ Miscellaneous\ Computer\ Applications^      |
|                                                                      |
| ^¨\ ^                                                                |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 0.  ^Workgroup\ 2170\ -\ Graphical\ User\ Interfaces^                |
|                                                                      |
| ## ^[[John\ Love\ -\ Di                                              |
| rector]{#_Toc510347297}]{.underline}[\ (703)\ 306-5484]{.underline}^ |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ^¨\ ^                                                                |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 0.  ^Workgroup\ 2130\ -\ Cryptography,\ Security^                    |
|                                                                      |
| ^¨\ ^                                                                |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 0.  ^[                                                               |
| Wo]{.underline}[rkgroup\ ]{.underline}2160\ -\ Electronic\ Commerce^ |
|                                                                      |
| ## ^[[Allen\ MacDonald\ -\                                           |
| Director]{#_Toc510347300}]{.underline}[\ (703)305-9700]{.underline}^ |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ^¨\ ^                                                                |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                                                                      |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 0.  ^Workgroup\ 2150\ -\ Computer\ Networks^                         |
|                                                                      |
| ^¨\ ^                                                                |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                                                                      |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+

0.  ^Workgroup\ 2180\ -\ Computer\ Architecture^

**Table 2**

+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ## ^[Group\ 2160\ -\ Class\ 705]{#_Toc510347303}^                 |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                                                                   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ^¨\ ^                                                             |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 0.  ^AU\ 2161\ -\ Business\ Cryptography/Postage\ Metering^       |
|                                                                   |
| ## ^\ [SPE\ -\ Jim\ Trammell]{#_Toc510347305}\ (703)\ 305-9768^   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ^¨\ ^                                                             |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 0.  ^AU\ 2162\ -\ Incentive\ Programs/Coupons\ ^                  |
|                                                                   |
| ## ^\ [SPE\ -\ Jim\ Trammell]{#_Toc510347307}\ (703)\ 305-9768^   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ^¨\ ^                                                             |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 0.  ^AU\ 2163\ -\ Operations\ Research^                           |
|                                                                   |
| ## ^[SPE\ -\ Tariq\ Hafiz]{#_Toc510347309}\ (703)305-9643^        |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ^¨\ ^                                                             |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 0.  ^AU\ 2164\ -\ Finance\ &\ Banking^                            |
|                                                                   |
| ## ^\ [SPE\ -\ Vincent\ Millin]{#_Toc510347311}\ (703)\ 308-1065^ |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ^¨\ ^                                                             |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 0.  ^AU\ 2165\ -\ E-shopping\ ^                                   |
|                                                                   |
| ## ^\ [SPE\ -\ Vincent\ Millin]{#_Toc510347313}\ (703)\ 308-1065^ |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ^¨\ ^                                                             |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 0.  ^AU\ 2166\ -\ Health\ Care/Insurance^                         |
|                                                                   |
| ## ^[SPE\ -\ Tariq\ Hafiz]{#_Toc510347315}\ (703)305-9643^        |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ^¨\ ^                                                             |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                                                                   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 0.  ^AU\ 2167\ -\ Point\ of\ sale/Inventory/Accounting^           |
|                                                                   |
| ## ^\ [SPE\ -\ Robert\ Olszewski]{#_Toc510347317}\ (703)308-5183^ |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                                                                   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+

# ^[III.\ CLASS\ 705\ -\ DEFINITION]{#_Toc510347318}^

# ^[The\ title\ of\ Class\ 705\ is\ \"Data\ processing:\ financial,\ business\ practice,\ management,\ or\ cost/price\ determination.\"\ The\ definition\ of\ Class\ 705\ is\ \"machines\ and\ methods\ for\ performing\ data\ processing\ or\ calculation\ operations\ in\ the:\ 1)\ practice,\ administration\ or\ management\ of\ an\ enterprise;\ 2)\ processing\ of\ financial\ data;\ or\ 3)\ determination\ of\ the\ charge\ for\ goods\ or\ services.\"]{#_Toc510347319}^

# ^[Thus,\ only\ ]{#_Toc510347320}computer-implemented\ processes\ related\ to\ e-commerce,\ the\ Internet\ and\ data\ processing\ involving\ finance,\ business\ practices,\ management\ or\ cost/price\ determination\ are\ classified\ in\ Class\ 705.\ All\ other\ applications\ that\ may\ be\ labeled\ a\ \"business\ method-type\ application\"\ will\ be\ classified,\ assigned\ and\ examined\ according\ to\ their\ technology.^

# ^[IV.\ STEPS\ TO\ CONSIDER\ PRIOR\ TO\ FILING\ THE\ APPLICATION]{#_Toc510347321}^

^If\ pendancy\ is\ an\ issue,\ an\ applicant\ may\ consider\ filing\ a\ Petition\ to\ Make\ Special\ under\ 37\ CFR\ 1.102.\ See\ MPEP\ 708.02.\ While\ new\ applications\ are\ not\ ordinarily\ taken\ up\ for\ examination\ out\ of\ the\ order\ of\ their\ effective\ United\ States\ filing\ dates,\ certain\ exceptions\ can\ be\ made\ by\ way\ of\ petition\ under\ 37\ CFR\ 1.102,\ which\ may\ be\ applicable\ to\ applications\ classified\ in\ Class\ 705.\ For\ example,\ if\ infringement\ is\ an\ issue\ or\ accelerated\ examination\ is\ desired,\ applicant\ may\ petition\ the\ Office\ to\ grant\ special\ status\ for\ advancement\ of\ the\ application\ under\ 37\ CFR\ 1.102.\ See\ MPEP\ 708.02\ for\ examples\ of\ other\ instances\ in\ which\ an\ application\ may\ qualify\ for\ special\ status.\ ^

^Applicant\ is\ encouraged\ to\ conduct\ a\ preliminary\ search\ and\ file\ an\ Information\ Disclosure\ Statement\ to\ comply\ with\ their\ duty\ of\ disclosure\ and\ advance\ prosecution\ of\ patent\ applications\ not\ only\ in\ Class\ 705,\ but\ in\ all\ other\ Classes\ at\ the\ USPTO\ as\ well.\ In\ doing\ so,\ avoid\ submitting\ irrelevant\ documents\ and\ only\ marginally\ pertinent\ information.\ Also,\ avoid\ lengthy\ submissions\ if\ possible,\ but\ if\ they\ are\ necessary,\ highlight\ the\ most\ pertinent\ information.\ Additionally,\ don\'t\ assume\ that\ the\ examiner\ of\ a\ particular\ application\ is\ aware\ of\ other\ applications\ belonging\ to\ the\ same\ applicant\ or\ assignee.\ It\ would\ be\ helpful\ to\ identify\ such\ applications\ to\ the\ examiner\ to\ streamline\ the\ examination\ process.\ Applicant\ can\ avoid\ further\ time\ delays\ by\ ensuring\ that\ prior\ art\ or\ other\ pertinent\ information\ in\ one\ application\ is\ cited\ to\ the\ examiner\ in\ other\ related\ applications.\ See\ MPEP\ Chapter\ 2000\ for\ more\ information\ on\ applicant\'s\ duty\ to\ disclose.\ ^

## ^[When\ submitting\ a\ foreign\ origin\ specification,\ it\ is\ recommended\ that\ applicant\ file\ a\ preliminary\ amendment\ that\ complies\ with\ USPTO\ examination\ practice.\ ]{#_Toc510347322}\ Quite\ often,\ literal\ translations\ of\ foreign\ applications\ are\ filed\ that\ do\ not\ comply\ with\ U.S.\ patent\ examination\ practice\ and\ procedure.\ This\ can\ lead\ to\ many\ problems\ concerning\ the\ adequacy\ of\ the\ disclosure\ and\ the\ written\ description\ requirement.\ Additionally,\ poorly\ drafted\ original\ claims\ can\ limit\ applicant\ to\ only\ one\ opportunity\ to\ amend\ by\ right\ during\ prosecution\ in\ the\ event\ that\ the\ second\ Office\ Action\ on\ the\ merits\ is\ made\ final.^

# **^[V.\ APPLICATION\ CONTENTS\ -\ THE\ SPECIFICATION]{#_Toc510347323}^** ^[Identify\ the\ Practical\ Application]{.underline}^**^[\ ]{.underline}^**

## ^[The\ claimed\ invention\ as\ a\ whole\ must\ accomplish\ a\ practical\ application.\ It\ must\ produce\ a\ \"useful,\ concrete\ and\ tangible\ result.\"\ See\ ]{#_Toc510347324}^*^State\ Street\ Bank\ &\ Trust\ v.\ Signature\ Financial\ Group\ Inc.,\ ^*^149\ F.3d\ 1368,\ 47\ USPQ2d\ 1596\ (Fed.\ Cir.\ 1998).\ The\ purpose\ of\ this\ requirement\ is\ to\ limit\ patent\ protection\ to\ inventions\ that\ possess\ a\ certain\ level\ of\ \"real\ world\"\ value,\ as\ opposed\ to\ subject\ matter\ that\ represents\ nothing\ more\ than\ an\ idea\ or\ concept,\ or\ is\ simply\ a\ staring\ point\ for\ future\ investigation\ or\ research.\ See\ MPEP\ 2106.\ The\ mere\ presence\ of\ a\ mathematical\ algorithm\ in\ a\ claim\ is\ not\ grounds\ for\ a\ rejection\ under\ 35\ U.S.C.\ 101.\ Instead,\ an\ examiner\ must\ review\ the\ claims\ to\ determine\ if\ the\ claimed\ invention\ produces\ a\ \"useful,\ concrete\ and\ tangible\ result.\"\ If\ the\ answer\ is\ yes,\ then\ the\ claimed\ invention\ has\ a\ practical\ application\ and\ satisfies\ the\ utility\ requirement\ of\ 35\ U.S.C.\ 101.\ Thus,\ it\ is\ vitally\ important\ that\ the\ specification\ is\ complete\ and\ clearly\ identifies\ any\ practical\ application\ for\ the\ claimed\ invention.\ ^

## ^[The\ applicant\ is\ in\ the\ best\ position\ to\ explain\ why\ an\ invention\ is\ believed\ useful.\ Applicant\ should\ in\ the\ specification:]{#_Toc510347325}^

1\. include a [clear]{.underline} description of the invention;

2.  ^describe\ the\ problem\ being\ solved;^

3.  ^identify\ the\ best\ mode\ of\ the\ invention;^

### ^[4.\ clearly\ identify\ any\ practical\ application\ asserted\ for\ the\ invention\ by\ identifying\ how\ the\ claimed\ invention\ produces\ a\ ]{#_Toc510347328}["]{#_Toc510347328}[useful,\ concrete\ and\ tangible\ result]{#_Toc510347328}["]{#_Toc510347328}[\ (]{#_Toc510347328}^*^See\ State\ Street);^*

5.  ^as\ noted\ earlier,\ discuss\ the\ best\ known\ prior\ art\ that\ is\ related\ to\ the\ invention.^

[Note]{.underline}: Items 1 and 3 are requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112.
These are tips for avoiding unnecessary delays in examination.

# ^[[Written\ Description\ Requirement]{#_Toc510347330}]{.underline}^

## ^[Applicant\ must\ be\ able\ to\ convey\ with\ reasonable\ clarity\ to\ one\ skilled\ in\ the\ art\ that\ applicant\ had\ possession\ of\ the\ claimed\ invention\ at\ the\ time\ the\ application\ was\ filed.\ Possession\ may\ be\ evidenced\ by\ actual\ reduction\ to\ practice,\ by\ clear\ depiction\ in\ detailed\ drawings,\ or\ through\ written\ description\ describing\ sufficient\ relevant\ identifying\ characteristics.\ Note\ here\ that\ what\ is\ conventional\ or\ well\ known\ to\ one\ skilled\ in\ the\ art\ need\ not\ be\ disclosed\ in\ detail.\ This\ is\ another\ example\ of\ how\ to\ avoid\ unnecessary\ examination\ delays\ in\ both\ Class\ 705\ and\ throughout\ the\ Office.]{#_Toc510347331}^

## ^[[Computer-Related\ Inventions]{#_Toc510347332}]{.underline}^

## ^[Patent\ applicants\ can\ assist\ the\ Office\ by\ preparing\ applications\ that\ clearly\ set\ forth\ the]{#_Toc510347333}^

## ^[following\ aspects\ of\ a\ computer-related\ invention:]{#_Toc510347334}^

^¨\ clearly\ identify\ what\ the\ programmed\ computer\ does\ when\ it\ performs\ the\ processes\ dictated\ by\ the\ software,\ i.e.\ identify\ the\ functionality\ of\ the\ programmed\ computer.^

^¨\ identify\ how\ the\ computer\ is\ to\ be\ configured\ to\ provide\ that\ functionality,\ i.e.\ identify\ what\ elements\ constitute\ the\ programmed\ computer\ and\ identify\ how\ those\ elements\ are\ configured\ and\ interrelate\ to\ provide\ the\ specified\ functionality.\ ^

^¨\ if\ applicable,\ identify\ the\ relationship\ of\ the\ programmed\ computer\ to\ other\ subject\ matter\ outside\ the\ computer\ that\ constitutes\ the\ invention\ i.e.\ explain\ how\ the\ computer\ is\ to\ be\ integrated\ with\ other\ elements\ that\ are\ a\ part\ of\ the\ invention\ such\ as\ machines,\ devices\ and\ materials;\ or\ explain\ how\ the\ computer\ is\ to\ be\ used\ in\ a\ claimed\ process.^

^¨\ Where\ software\ constitutes\ a\ part\ of\ the\ best\ mode\ of\ carrying\ out\ the\ invention,\ a\ description\ of\ such\ best\ mode\ is\ satisfied\ by\ a\ disclosure\ of\ the\ functions\ of\ the\ software.\ However\ charts\ or\ source\ code\ listings\ are\ not\ a\ requirement\ for\ adequately\ disclosing\ the\ functions\ of\ the\ software.\ (^*^Fonar\ Corp.\ v.\ General\ Electric\ Co.,^*^\ 107\ F.\ 3d\ 1543,\ 1549,\ 41\ USPQ\ 2d\ 1801,\ 1805\ (Fed\ Cir.\ 1997)).^

### ^[Note:\ Disclosure\ of\ a\ software\ program\ is\ not\ necessary\ to\ satisfy\ the\ best\ mode\ requirement\ where\ the\ functions\ of\ the\ software\ program\ were\ readily\ apparent\ from\ the\ specification\ and\ one\ skilled\ in\ the\ art\ could\ generate\ the\ necessary\ software\ program\ to\ implement\ the\ disclosed\ functions.]{#_Toc510347339}^

### ^[[Functional\ Language]{#_Toc510347340}]{.underline}^

### ^[When\ rendering\ a\ patentability\ determination,\ the\ USPTO\ may\ not\ disregard\ structure\ disclosed\ in\ the\ specification\ that\ corresponds\ to\ means\ (or\ step)\ plus\ function\ language.\ ]{#_Toc510347341}^*^In\ re\ Donaldson\ Co^*^.,16\ F.3d\ 1189,\ 29\ USPQ2d\ 1845\ (Fed.\ Cir.\ 1994).\ Thus,\ if\ means\ (or\ step)\ plus\ function\ limitations\ are\ recited\ in\ the\ claims,\ applicant\ must\ clearly\ identify\ in\ the\ specification\ the\ corresponding\ structure,\ material,\ or\ acts\ for\ performing\ the\ function.\ A\ means\ (or\ step)\ plus\ function\ limitation\ should\ be\ interpreted\ in\ a\ manner\ consistent\ with\ the\ specification\ disclosure.\ If\ the\ specification\ defines\ what\ is\ meant\ by\ the\ limitation\ for\ the\ purposes\ of\ the\ claimed\ invention,\ the\ examiner\ should\ interpret\ the\ limitation\ as\ having\ that\ meaning\ and\ its\ equivalent.\ If\ no\ definition\ is\ provided,\ judgment\ will\ be\ exercised\ in\ determining\ the\ scope\ of\ the\ limitation.\ See,\ e.g.\ ^*^B.\ Braun\ Medical,\ Inc.\ v.\ Abbott\ Labs^*^.,\ 124\ F.3d\ 1419,\ 1424,\ 43\ USPQ2d\ 1896,\ 1900\ (Fed.\ Cir.\ 1997).\ Thus,\ applicant\ is\ encouraged\ to\ include\ or\ exclude\ from\ the\ means\ (or\ step)\ plus\ function\ language\ what\ is\ desired.\ Again,\ phrases\ and\ terms\ used\ in\ the\ claims\ should\ be\ clearly\ supported\ by\ the\ specification,\ and\ with\ computer-related\ inventions,\ conventional\ programming\ need\ not\ be\ supplied\ -\ use\ flow\ diagrams.^

## ^[VI.\ COMPLYING\ WITH\ 35\ U.S.C.\ 101]{#_Toc510347342}^

## ^[35\ U.S.C.\ 101\ reads]{#_Toc510347343}^*^:^^"^^Whoever\ invents\ or\ discovers\ any\ new\ and\ useful\ process,\ machine,\ manufacture,\ or\ composition\ of\ matter,\ or\ any\ new\ and\ useful\ improvement\ thereof,\ may\ obtain\ a\ patent\ therefor,\ subject\ to\ the\ conditions\ and\ requirements\ of\ this\ title.^^"^*^\ The\ Supreme\ Court\ has\ stated\ that\ Congress\ intended\ statutory\ subject\ matter\ to\ "include\ anything\ under\ the\ sun\ that\ is\ made\ by\ man."\ ^*^See\ Diamond\ v.\ Chakrabarty^*^,\ 447\ U.S.\ 303,\ 309\ (1980).\ The\ Supreme\ Court\ has\ also\ specifically\ noted\ exceptions\ to\ this\ and\ identified\ three\ categories\ of\ unpatentable\ subject\ matter.\ They\ are:\ "laws\ of\ nature,\ natural\ phenomena,\ and\ abstract\ ideas."\ ^*^See\ Diamond\ v.\ Diehr^*^,\ 450\ U.S.\ 175,\ 185\ (1981).\ ^

## ^[Further,\ the\ Supreme\ Court\ has\ held\ that\ mathematical\ algorithms\ ]{#_Toc510347344}^*^per\ se^*^\ are\ not\ patentable\ subject\ matter\ to\ the\ extent\ that\ they\ are\ merely\ abstract\ ideas.\ ^*^See\ Diamond\ v.\ Diehr.\ ^*^\ In\ ^*^Diehr^*^,\ the\ Court\ explained\ further\ that\ certain\ types\ of\ mathematical\ subject\ matter,\ standing\ alone,\ represent\ nothing\ more\ than\ abstract\ ideas\ until\ reduced\ to\ some\ type\ of\ practical\ application,\ i.e.,\ "a\ useful,\ concrete\ and\ tangible\ result."\ ^*^See\ State\ Street,\ ^*^149\ F.3d\ at\ 1373,\ 47\ USPQ2d\ at\ 1601-02.\ ^

Thus, practical application is achieved when the claimed subject matter
produces a useful, concrete and tangible result. This is the test for
identifying statutory subject matter not only in computer-related
inventions classified in Class 705, but throughout the Office. However,
once identified to be statutory, inventions are still subject to the
patentability requirements of 35 U.S.C 102, 103 and 112.

## ^[Note\ that\ an\ applicant\ may\ assert\ more\ than\ one\ practical\ application,\ but\ only\ one\ is\ necessary\ to\ satisfy\ the\ utility\ requirement\ under\ 35\ U.S.C.\ 101.]{#_Toc510347345}^

Claims define non-statutory processes if they:

^¨\ Consist\ solely\ of\ mathematical\ operations\ without\ some\ claimed\ practical\ application;^

^¨\ Simply\ manipulate\ abstract\ ideas\ without\ some\ claimed\ practical\ application\ e.g.\ the\ court\ held\ that\ a\ method\ of\ conducting\ a\ real\ estate\ bidding\ process\ was\ a\ mere\ manipulation\ of\ an\ abstract\ idea\ ^*^In\ re\ Schrader^*^,\ 22\ F.3d\ 290,\ 293-94,\ 30\ USPQ2d\ 1455,\ 1458-59\ (Fed.\ Cir.\ 1994).\ The\ Court\ also\ held\ that\ a\ method\ for\ controlling\ the\ motion\ of\ objects\ and\ machines\ is\ simply\ a\ manipulation\ of\ abstract\ ideas;\ and\ the\ steps\ of\ \"locating\"\ a\ medial\ axis\ and\ \"creating\"\ a\ bubble\ hierarchy\ describes\ nothing\ more\ than\ the\ manipulation\ of\ basic\ mathematical\ constructs.\ ^*^In\ re\ Warmerdam^*^,\ 33\ F.3d\ 1354,\ 1361-62,\ 31\ USPQ2d\ 1754,\ 1760\ (Fed.\ Cir.).\ ^

## ^\ ^

**VII. APPLICATION CONTENTS - THE CLAIMS**

## ^[Office\ personnel\ are\ to\ give\ claims\ their\ broadest\ reasonable\ interpretation\ in\ light\ of\ the]{#_Toc510347348}^

## ^supporting\ disclosure.\ ^*^In\ re\ Morris^*^,\ 127\ F.3d\ 1048,\ 1054-55,\ 44\ USPQ2d\ 1023,\ 1027-28\ (Fed.\ Cir.\ 1997).\ Limitations\ appearing\ in\ the\ specification\ but\ not\ recited\ in\ the\ claims\ are\ not\ read\ into\ the\ claim.\ So\ be\ specific.\ Each\ claim\ limitation\ must\ be\ expressly,\ implicitly,\ or\ inherently\ supported\ in\ the\ originally\ filed\ disclosure,\ and\ each\ claim\ must\ include\ all\ elements\ which\ applicant\ has\ described\ as\ essential\ or\ critical.^

## ^[[Claim\ Drafting\ Suggestions]{#_Toc510347350}]{.underline}[\ ]{.underline}^

^¨\ Use\ "Jepson-type"\ claim\ construction\ when\ appropriate\ i.e.,\ \"the\ improvement\ comprising..."^

^¨\ Limit\ claims\ to\ a\ reasonable\ number,\ drawn\ to\ a\ single\ invention^

-   ^Make\ sure\ claims\ have\ proper\ antecedence\ in\ the\ specification^

^¨\ Start\ with\ broad\ claims\ and\ then\ narrow\ them^

## ^\ [(Festo\ considerations)]{#_Toc510347355}^

-   ^Range\ within\ a\ range\ normally\ raises\ 112,\ 2nd\ paragraph\ issues^

-   ^If\ it\ is\ desired\ that\ patentability\ be\ based\ on\ specific\ ranges,\ must\ have\ a\ showing\ of^

## ^\ criticality\ ^

-   ^Be\ aware\ of\ 101\ issues:^

    -   ^data\ streams\ ^*^per\ se^^\ ^*^(not\ patentable\ ^*^per\ se^*^)^

    -   ^[non\ functional\ data]{#_Toc510347360}\ (not\ patentable\ ^*^per\ se^*^)^

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   ^Ask\ a\ colleague\ to\ review\ claims\ without\ reading\ the\ specification^

## ^[Be\ careful\ with:]{#_Toc510347362}^

^¨\ statements\ of\ intended\ use^

^¨\ "able"\ or\ "adapted\ for"\ clauses^

^¨\ "whereby"\ and\ "wherein"\ clauses^

## ^[These\ phrases\ may\ raise\ a\ question\ as\ to\ the\ limiting\ effect\ of\ the\ language\ in\ the\ claim]{#_Toc510347366}^

## ^[i.e.,\ the\ scope\ of\ the\ claim\ may\ be\ unclear.]{#_Toc510347367}\ See\ MPEP\ 2173.^

[Treatment of Means or Step Plus Function]{.underline}

## ^[There\ are\ three\ requirements\ for\ a\ claim\ limitation\ to\ invoke\ 35\ U.S.C.\ 112,\ ]{#_Toc510347368}[¶]{#_Toc510347368}[\ 6:]{#_Toc510347368}^

### ^[(1)\ ]{#_Toc510347369}Claim\ limitation\ must\ use\ the\ phrase\ "means\ for"\ or\ "step\ for;"^

### ^[(2)\ The\ ]{#_Toc510347370}["]{#_Toc510347370}[means\ for]{#_Toc510347370}["]{#_Toc510347370}[\ or\ ]{#_Toc510347370}["]{#_Toc510347370}[step\ for]{#_Toc510347370}["]{#_Toc510347370}[\ must\ be\ modified\ by\ functional\ language;\ and]{#_Toc510347370}^

### ^[(3)\ The\ phrase\ ]{#_Toc510347371}["]{#_Toc510347371}[means\ for]{#_Toc510347371}["]{#_Toc510347371}[\ or\ ]{#_Toc510347371}["]{#_Toc510347371}[step\ for]{#_Toc510347371}["]{#_Toc510347371}[\ must\ not\ be\ modified\ by\ sufficient\ structure,\ material,\ or\ acts\ for\ achieving\ the\ specified\ function.]{#_Toc510347371}^

## ^[Note\ that\ the\ use\ of\ the\ phrase\ ]{#_Toc510347372}["]{#_Toc510347372}[step\ for]{#_Toc510347372}["]{#_Toc510347372}[\ in\ a\ method\ claim\ raises\ a\ presumption\ that\ 35\ U.S.C.\ 112,\ ]{#_Toc510347372}[¶]{#_Toc510347372}[\ 6\ applies,\ whereas,\ use\ of\ the\ word\ ]{#_Toc510347372}["]{#_Toc510347372}[step]{#_Toc510347372}["]{#_Toc510347372}[\ by\ itself\ or\ the\ phrase\ ]{#_Toc510347372}["]{#_Toc510347372}[step\ of]{#_Toc510347372}["]{#_Toc510347372}[\ does\ not\ invoke\ a\ presumption\ that\ 35\ U.S.C.\ 112,\ ]{#_Toc510347372}[¶]{#_Toc510347372}[\ 6\ applies.]{#_Toc510347372}^

## ^[[Examining\ Procedure\ under\ 35\ U.S./C.\ 112,\ 6th\ Paragraph]{#_Toc510347373}]{.underline}^

^The\ Federal\ Circuit\ recognized\ that\ it\ is\ important\ to\ retain\ the\ principle\ that\ claim\ language\ should\ be\ given\ its\ broadest\ reasonable\ interpretation\ .\ ^*^In\ re\ Donaldson,\ ^*^16\ F.3d\ 1189,\ 29\ USPQ\ 2d\ 1845\ (Fed.\ Cir.\ 1994).\ Thus,\ the\ application\ of\ a\ prior\ art\ reference\ to\ a\ means\ or\ step\ plus\ function\ limitation\ requires\ that\ the\ prior\ art\ element\ perform\ the\ identical\ function\ specified\ in\ the\ claim.\ However,\ if\ a\ prior\ art\ reference\ teaches\ identity\ of\ function\ to\ that\ specified\ in\ the\ claim,\ then\ under\ ^*^Donaldson^*^\ an\ examiner\ carries\ the\ initial\ burden\ of\ proof\ for\ showing\ that\ the\ prior\ art\ structure\ or\ step\ is\ the\ same\ as\ or\ equivalent\ to\ the\ structure,\ material,\ or\ acts\ described\ in\ the\ specification\ which\ have\ been\ identified\ as\ corresponding\ to\ the\ claimed\ means\ or\ step\ plus\ function.\ See\ MPEP\ 2182.\ Additionally,\ means\ (or\ step)\ plus\ function\ limitations\ will\ be\ interpreted\ in\ a\ manner\ consistent\ with\ the\ specification.\ So\ it\ is\ important\ that\ consistency\ is\ maintained\ between\ the\ claims\ and\ the\ specification\ disclosure.^

^[Making\ a\ ]{.underline}^*^[Prima\ facie]{.underline}^*^[\ Case]{.underline}^

^If\ the\ examiner\ finds\ that\ a\ prior\ art\ element\ (1)\ performs\ the\ function\ specified\ in\ the\ claim,\ (2)\ is\ not\ excluded\ by\ any\ explicit\ definition\ provided\ in\ the\ specification\ for\ an\ equivalent,\ and\ (3)\ is\ an\ equivalent\ of\ the\ means-(or\ step-)\ plus-function\ limitation,\ the\ examiner\ should\ provide\ an\ explanation\ and\ rationale\ in\ the\ Office\ action\ as\ to\ why\ the\ prior\ art\ element\ is\ an\ equivalent.\ Factors\ that\ will\ support\ a\ conclusion\ that\ the\ prior\ art\ element\ is\ an\ equivalent\ are:^

1.  ^the\ prior\ art\ element\ performs\ the\ identical\ function\ specified\ in\ the\ claim\ in\ substantially\ the\ same\ way,\ and\ produces\ substantially\ the\ same\ results\ as\ the\ corresponding\ element\ disclosed\ in\ the\ specification\ ([Kemco\ Sales,\ Inc.\ v.\ Control\ Papers\ Co.,]{.underline}\ 54\ USPQ2d\ 1308,\ 1315\ (Fed.\ Cir.\ 2000);\ [Odetics,\ Inc.\ v.\ Storage\ Tech.\ Corp.]{.underline},\ 185\ F.3d\ 1259,\ 1267,\ 51\ USPQ2d\ 1225,\ 1229-30\ (Fed.\ Cir.\ 1999)).^

2.  ^a\ person\ of\ ordinary\ skill\ in\ the\ art\ would\ have\ recognized\ the\ interchangeability\ of\ the\ element\ shown\ in\ the\ prior\ art\ for\ the\ corresponding\ element\ disclosed\ in\ the\ specification\ ([Al-Site\ Corp.\ v.\ VSI\ Int]{.underline}[']{.underline}[l,\ Inc]{.underline}.,\ 174\ F.3d\ 1308,\ 1316,\ 50\ USPQ2d\ 1161,\ 1165\ (Fed.\ Cir.\ 1999);\ [Chiuminatta\ Concrete\ Concepts,\ Inc.\ v.\ Cardinal\ Indus.,\ Inc]{.underline}.,\ 145\ F.3d\ 1303,\ 1309,\ 46\ USPQ2d\ 1752,\ 1757\ (Fed.\ Cir.\ 1998);\ [Lockheed\ Aircraft\ Corp.\ v.\ United\ States]{.underline},\ 553\ F.2d\ 69,\ 83,\ 193\ USPQ\ 449,\ 461\ (Ct.\ Cl.\ 1977)).^

3.  there are insubstantial differences between the prior art element
    and the corresponding element disclosed in the specification ([IMS
    Technology, Inc. v. Haas Automation, Inc]{.underline}., 206 F.3d
    1422, 1436, 54 USPQ2d 1129, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2000); [Valmont
    Indus. v. Reinke Mfg. Co]{.underline}., 983 F.2d 1039, 1043, 25
    USPQ2d 1451, 1455 (Fed. Cir. 1993)).

4.  the prior art element is a structural equivalent of the
    corresponding element disclosed in the specification ([In re
    Bond]{.underline}, 910 F.2d 831, 833, 15 USPQ2d 1566, 1568 (Fed.
    Cir. 1990)).

^A\ showing\ of\ at\ least\ one\ of\ the\ above-noted\ factors\ by\ the\ examiner\ should\ be\ sufficient\ to\ support\ a\ conclusion\ that\ the\ prior\ art\ element\ is\ an\ equivalent.\ The\ examiner\ should\ then\ conclude\ that\ the\ claimed\ limitation\ is\ met\ by\ the\ prior\ art\ element.\ In\ addition\ to\ the\ conclusion\ that\ the\ prior\ art\ element\ is\ an\ equivalent,\ examiners\ should\ also\ demonstrate,\ where\ appropriate,\ why\ it\ would\ have\ been\ obvious\ to\ one\ of\ ordinary\ skill\ in\ the\ art\ at\ the\ time\ of\ the\ invention\ to\ substitute\ applicant's\ described\ structure,\ material,\ or\ acts\ for\ that\ described\ in\ the\ prior\ art\ reference.\ [See]{.underline}\ [In\ re\ Brown]{.underline},\ 459\ F.2d\ 531,\ 535,\ 173\ USPQ\ 685,\ 688\ (CCPA\ 1972).\ The\ burden\ then\ shifts\ to\ applicant\ to\ show\ that\ the\ prior\ art\ element\ is\ not\ an\ equivalent\ of\ the\ structure,\ material,\ or\ acts\ disclosed\ in\ the\ application.\ [See]{.underline}\ [In\ re\ Mulder]{.underline},\ 716\ F.2d\ 1542,\ 1549,\ 219\ USPQ\ 189,\ 196\ (Fed.\ Cir.\ 1983).^

^\ [[Related\ Issues\ under\ 35\ U.S.C.\ 112,\ First\ and\ Second\ Paragraphs]{#_Toc510347380}]{.underline}^

### ^[Invocation\ of\ 35\ U.S.C.\ 112,\ sixth\ paragraph\ does\ not\ exempt\ applicant\ from\ compliance\ with\ 35\ U.S.C.\ 112,\ first\ and\ second\ paragraphs.\ While\ 35\ U,S.C.\ 112\ sixth\ paragraph\ does\ permit\ a\ certain\ form\ of\ claim\ limitation,\ it\ does\ not\ create\ an\ exception\ to\ the\ description,\ enablement\ or\ best\ mode\ requirements\ of\ the\ first\ paragraph\ or\ the\ definiteness\ requirement\ of\ the\ second\ paragraph\ of\ 35\ U.S.C.\ 112.\ ]{#_Toc510347381}^*^In\ re\ Knowlton^*^,\ 481\ F.2d\ 1357,\ 1366,\ 178\ USPQ\ 486,\ 493\ (CCPA\ 1973).^

# ^[VIII.\ ]{#_Toc510347382}[TIPS\ TO\ STREAMLINE\ THE\ PROCESS]{.underline}^

## ^[It\ is\ important\ that\ the\ lines\ of\ communication\ between\ the\ USPTO\ and\ the\ applicant\ are\ open\ and\ productive.\ Thus,\ don]{#_Toc510347383}[']{#_Toc510347383}[t\ hesitate\ to\ contact\ the\ examiner\ for\ an\ interview\ at\ any\ time\ after\ first\ action.\ Also,\ with\ CPAs\ and\ RCEs,\ an\ interview\ before\ first\ action\ may\ be\ helpful.\ Contact\ the\ SPE\ with\ questions\ or\ problems.\ Additionally,\ don\'t\ hesitate\ to\ call\ the\ Technology\ Center\ Director\ of\ a\ particular\ area\ if\ questions\ or\ problems\ are\ not\ being\ resolved.]{#_Toc510347383}\ ^