Just weeks after its May 2016 memorandum to examiners providing guidance on subject matter eligibility under § 101, yesterday the USPTO issued a new memo updating its guidance to examiners in view of the Federal Circuit's Enfish decision. As this memo points out, the Enfish decision gave a concrete example of claims directed to improvements in computer-related technology, including claims directed to software, that are not abstract under the first step of the Alice/Mayo analysis. Going forward, it will be important for examiners and applicants to closely analyze the limitations of claims at issue to determine whether the claims are directed to a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts. If so, they likely satisfy the requirements of § 101 under the Enfish decision.
This article is presented for informational purposes only and is not intended to constitute legal advice.
