MPEP Q&A 272: Limitation that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as“significantly more”when recited in a claim with a judicial exception. - a podcast by Lisa Parmley, USPTO Patent Practitioner #51006

Question: Name a limitation that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception. Answer: 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: Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g.,a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer; Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities…

The post MPEP Q & A 272: Limitation that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception. appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Further episodes of Patent Bar MPEP Q

Further podcasts by Lisa Parmley, USPTO Patent Practitioner #51006

Website of Lisa Parmley, USPTO Patent Practitioner #51006