In talking to clients whose patent applications involve software, it simply is not good enough to ask for as much specificity as possible to help remove the invention from the realm of an abstract idea and avoid an unpatentable subject matter rejection. Rather, it now seems that the required specificity must also be grounded in a “technical means” for implementing the software components. Of course, what this “technical means” encompasses is not necessarily easy to define.
Smartphone under judge gavel over it – studio shot on white
The patents at issue involved systems and methods for performing real-time performance monitoring of an electric power grid by collecting data from multiple data sources, analyzing the data, and displaying results. Importantly, a majority of software developers will consider many of the recited steps as common building block of the trade, including:
receiving a plurality of data streams;
detecting and analyzing events in real-time;
displaying analysis results;
displaying concurrent visualization of measurements;
accumulating and updating the measurements from the date streams; and
deriving a composite indicator of reliability.
In reviewing these steps, the court first clarified which of them simply do not qualify as a “technical means.” Specifically, “the collection of information, including when limited to particular content, is considered abstract.” Id at 7. “The analysis of information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithm, without more, as essentially metal processes is considered abstract.” Id. “The mere presentation of results of abstract processes of collecting analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a particular tool for presentation), is considered abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis.” Id.
In view of these abstract elements, the court noted that the claims simply define “a process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content” while not including “any particular assuredly inventive technology for performing these functions.” Id at 8. The court further clarified this distinction by comparing “computer-functionality improvements” on the one hand and “uses of existing computer tools in aid of processes focused on abstract ideas” on the other. Id.
So, what are these “technical means” which may provide for “computer-functionality improvements” and so help remove a claim from the realm of an abstract idea? Of course, neither the court nor any attorney can provide a specific definition since this would most likely preclude a novel invention. However, the court does suggest certain “technical means” which, based on case law, might have saved the claims, including:
“The claims do not even require a new or type of information, or new technique for analyzing it.” Id at 9.
The claims “do not require an arguably inventive set of components or methods, such as measurement devices or techniques, that would generate new data. Id (emphasis added).
The claims “do not invoke any assertedly inventive programming.” Id(emphasis added).
The claims “do not require any nonconventional computer, network, or display components, or even a ‘non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces.'” Id at 10 (emphasis added).
The claims “do not require an arguably inventive device or technique for displaying information.” Id (emphasis added).
The claims do not “require an arguably inventive distribution of functionality within a network.” Id (emphasis added).
It would seem from these court-provided samples that a viable “technical means” needs to provide some inventive variation of the computer system on which the method is implemented. Specifically, something beyond implementing the method on an off-the-shelf computer or something beyond the functionality provided by a standard off-the-shelf operating system.
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Developing Requirements For Patentable Subject Matter
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
In talking to clients whose patent applications involve software, it simply is not good enough to ask for as much specificity as possible to help remove the invention from the realm of an abstract idea and avoid an unpatentable subject matter rejection. Rather, it now seems that the required specificity must also be grounded in a “technical means” for implementing the software components. Of course, what this “technical means” encompasses is not necessarily easy to define.
Smartphone under judge gavel over it – studio shot on white
The patents at issue involved systems and methods for performing real-time performance monitoring of an electric power grid by collecting data from multiple data sources, analyzing the data, and displaying results. Importantly, a majority of software developers will consider many of the recited steps as common building block of the trade, including:
receiving a plurality of data streams;
detecting and analyzing events in real-time;
displaying analysis results;
displaying concurrent visualization of measurements;
accumulating and updating the measurements from the date streams; and
deriving a composite indicator of reliability.
In reviewing these steps, the court first clarified which of them simply do not qualify as a “technical means.” Specifically, “the collection of information, including when limited to particular content, is considered abstract.” Id at 7. “The analysis of information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithm, without more, as essentially metal processes is considered abstract.” Id. “The mere presentation of results of abstract processes of collecting analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a particular tool for presentation), is considered abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis.” Id.
In view of these abstract elements, the court noted that the claims simply define “a process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content” while not including “any particular assuredly inventive technology for performing these functions.” Id at 8. The court further clarified this distinction by comparing “computer-functionality improvements” on the one hand and “uses of existing computer tools in aid of processes focused on abstract ideas” on the other. Id.
So, what are these “technical means” which may provide for “computer-functionality improvements” and so help remove a claim from the realm of an abstract idea? Of course, neither the court nor any attorney can provide a specific definition since this would most likely preclude a novel invention. However, the court does suggest certain “technical means” which, based on case law, might have saved the claims, including:
“The claims do not even require a new or type of information, or new technique for analyzing it.” Id at 9.
The claims “do not require an arguably inventive set of components or methods, such as measurement devices or techniques, that would generate new data. Id (emphasis added).
The claims “do not invoke any assertedly inventive programming.” Id(emphasis added).
The claims “do not require any nonconventional computer, network, or display components, or even a ‘non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces.'” Id at 10 (emphasis added).
The claims “do not require an arguably inventive device or technique for displaying information.” Id (emphasis added).
The claims do not “require an arguably inventive distribution of functionality within a network.” Id (emphasis added).
It would seem from these court-provided samples that a viable “technical means” needs to provide some inventive variation of the computer system on which the method is implemented. Specifically, something beyond implementing the method on an off-the-shelf computer or something beyond the functionality provided by a standard off-the-shelf operating system.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!
