On November 2nd, the USPTO issued new guidance to Patent Examiners regarding § 101 subject matter eligibility. The memorandum (USPTO-McRO-Bascom-Memo-1.pdf) provides guidance based on Federal Circuit decisions issued since the office’s most recent, May 2016, update. The memo includes guidance based on the Federal Circuit’s recent decisions in McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games and BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility decisions.
In McRO, the Federal Circuit held that a method of automatic lip synchronization and facial expression animation using computer-implemented rules is patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to an improvement in computer-related technology. The improvement was routed in a set of specific rules to set morph weights and transition parameters between phonemes. The court indicated that it was the incorporation of these specific rules in computer animation that provided the necessary improvement to the existing technological process. The memo notes that these specific rules, as explained in the specification, are not used by human artists which instead rely on subjective determinations to set forth the morph weights and the manipulation of the animated face to match pronounced phenomes.
The memo suggests looking at (1) a teaching in the specification about how the claimed invention improves a computer or other technology or (2) a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome defined by the claimed invention, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome as possible indicators that a claim is directed to an improvement in computer-related technology.
In BASCOM, the Federal Circuit held that a system that includes the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user is patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Court agreed that the additional elements including a generic computer, network, and Internet components did not amount to significantly more under step 2B of the USPTO’s Subject Matter Eligibility Test when considered individually. However, the Court explained that the inventive concept may be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of the additional elements, namely the placement of customized filtering components.
The memo suggests that examiners need to consider additional elements in combination, as well as individually when determining whether a claim as whole amounts to significantly more, as this requirement may be found in non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known or conventional elements.
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.
USPTO Issues Memorandum On Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
On November 2nd, the USPTO issued new guidance to Patent Examiners regarding § 101 subject matter eligibility. The memorandum (USPTO-McRO-Bascom-Memo-1.pdf) provides guidance based on Federal Circuit decisions issued since the office’s most recent, May 2016, update. The memo includes guidance based on the Federal Circuit’s recent decisions in McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games and BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility decisions.
In McRO, the Federal Circuit held that a method of automatic lip synchronization and facial expression animation using computer-implemented rules is patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to an improvement in computer-related technology. The improvement was routed in a set of specific rules to set morph weights and transition parameters between phonemes. The court indicated that it was the incorporation of these specific rules in computer animation that provided the necessary improvement to the existing technological process. The memo notes that these specific rules, as explained in the specification, are not used by human artists which instead rely on subjective determinations to set forth the morph weights and the manipulation of the animated face to match pronounced phenomes.
The memo suggests looking at (1) a teaching in the specification about how the claimed invention improves a computer or other technology or (2) a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome defined by the claimed invention, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome as possible indicators that a claim is directed to an improvement in computer-related technology.
In BASCOM, the Federal Circuit held that a system that includes the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user is patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Court agreed that the additional elements including a generic computer, network, and Internet components did not amount to significantly more under step 2B of the USPTO’s Subject Matter Eligibility Test when considered individually. However, the Court explained that the inventive concept may be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of the additional elements, namely the placement of customized filtering components.
The memo suggests that examiners need to consider additional elements in combination, as well as individually when determining whether a claim as whole amounts to significantly more, as this requirement may be found in non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known or conventional elements.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!
