April 24, 2018
Authored and Edited by Christopher C. Johns; Adriana L. Burgy
On April 19, the USPTO issued one of the more consequential and examination-changing opinions on the subject of § 101 since its initial memoranda on Alice. The memorandum discusses Step 2B (“significantly more”) of the Mayo/Alice test as applied by the Federal Circuit’s opinion in Berkheimer v. HP (which is discussed here). In that case, the Federal Circuit found that while the appealed claims were directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A), the district court erred in concluding that there were no factual questions underlying the § 101 inquiry. The Berkheimer court focused on certain language in claims that contained limitations “directed to [an] arguably unconventional inventive concept described in the specification.” The court reversed the finding of ineligibility as the defendant offered no evidence that the claims in fact recited “well‑understood, routine, and conventional” techniques.
The USPTO’s memorandum on April 19 acknowledging Berkheimer addresses this “limited question:” whether additional elements “represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity” and the particular reasoning required to support such a finding. The Office acknowledges for the first time that evidence may be required: “As set forth in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(I), an examiner should conclude that an element (or combination of elements) represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity only when the examiner can readily conclude that the element(s) is widely prevalent or in common use in the relevant industry. This memorandum clarifies that such a conclusion must be based upon a factual determination that is supported as discussed in section III below.” (Contrast this with the July 2015 Update, at 7: “a rejection should only be made if an examiner relying on his or her expertise in the art can readily conclude in the Step 2B inquiry that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more”)
The memo—especially Section III—seemingly suggests that a claim recites “significantly more” unless proven otherwise: “an additional element (or combination of elements) is not well-understood, routine, or conventional unless the examiner finds, and expressly supports a rejection in writing with” certain evidence. This evidence is limited to the following four categories, each of which reminds examiners that the element(s) in question must be explicitly found to be well‑understood, routine, or conventional—not merely known.
The PTO notes at the very end that the MPEP will be updated to incorporate the changes in this memo.
The USPTO attempts to make this memo sound like a “clarification.” But this is, in fact, a big departure from current practice. One small example: current MPEP § 2106.05(d)(I) notes that “courts have not required evidence to support a finding that additional elements were well‐understood, routine, conventional activities, but instead have treated the issue as a matter appropriate for judicial notice,” and even advises examiners against performing a “prior art search.” Contrast this with category 3 above, which the USPTO notes must demonstrate the well‑understood nature of any such element(s).
Given the high bar for evidence that an examiner may wish to rely upon, it may be to your advantage to push back on rejections under § 101 that do not cite sufficient evidence for Step 2B. This also further highlights the need to have the examiner make explicit what rationale and/or support is being relied upon not only for § 101 rejections, but any patentability rejections.
Copyright © 2018 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
10th Annual Georgia Asian Pacific American Bar Association Gala
May 29, 2024
Atlanta
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.