3 Lessons from Federal Circuit Ruling on Computer Implemented Inventions

Nutter McClennen & Fish LLP

The fate of subject matter eligibility is far from certain today; however, there are a few application drafting takeaways from the Visual Memory case that can help in getting computer implemented inventions to allowance:

  1. Include details relating to specific technological improvements of the computer system.
  2. Detail all of the advantages that the technological improvements provide over the prior art. The combination of identifying the technological improvement and the associated advantages can help support an argument to overcome, or avoid altogether, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
  3. Tie the claims to the recited technological improvements and advantages identified in the specification.

Case Background

Identifying two recent Federal Circuit decisions—Enfish and Thales—as guide posts, the Federal Circuit determined that the claims at issue in the Visual Memory patent, U.S. Patent No. 5,953,740, involved a technological improvement to a computer memory system that provided distinct advantages over the prior art. Specifically, the Visual Memory patent is directed to a memory system that has programmable operational characteristics that can be tailored for use with multiple different processors without any associated reduction in performance—as was common in the prior art.

The combination of the technological improvement and associated identified advantages led the Federal Circuit to determine that the claims recite eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 that is more than merely the “use of an abstract mathematical formula on any general purpose computer.” The court was careful to note, however, that while the claims at issue were patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101, they could still be subject to invalidity arguments under other sections of patent law.


The decision in the Visual Memory case can be good news to those seeking patent protection in the area of computer implemented technologies. Using the guide posts of Enfish, Thales, and Visual Memory, the path to subject matter eligible computer claims is a little clearer.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Nutter McClennen & Fish LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Nutter McClennen & Fish LLP

Nutter McClennen & Fish LLP on:

Reporters on Deadline

Related Case Law

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide

This website uses cookies to improve user experience, track anonymous site usage, store authorization tokens and permit sharing on social media networks. By continuing to browse this website you accept the use of cookies. Click here to read more about how we use cookies.