Introduction to Examples 1-8
The following examples should be used in conjunction with the 2014 Interim Eligibility Guidance. As the examples are intended to be illustrative only, they should be interpreted based on the fact patterns set forth below. Other fact patterns may have different eligibility outcomes.
This set of examples is arranged into two parts. The first part includes four fact patterns with claims that are patent eligible, several of which draw from U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decisions, and the second part includes four fact patterns with claims that were found ineligible by the Federal Circuit. Each of the examples shows how claims should be analyzed under the 2014 Interim Eligibility Guidance. All of the claims are analyzed for eligibility in accordance with their broadest reasonable interpretation.
These examples show claims that would be patent eligible when analyzed under the 2014 Interim Eligibility Guidance. The first example is a hypothetical claim and fact pattern that illustrates an eligible software invention that is not directed to an abstract idea. The second example is a recent Federal Circuit decision. The third and fourth examples are informed by Federal Circuit decisions where claims were found eligible, but are drafted as hypothetical claims modified to prominently add an abstract idea for teaching purposes to facilitate analysis under the “significantly more” prong of the 2014 Interim Eligibility Guidance.
These examples show claims that were held ineligible by the Federal Circuit. The analysis sections are informed by the court decisions but offer exemplary hypothetical analyses under the 2014 Interim Eligibility Guidance.