The USPTO explained: "The ARP decision explains that the claims are patent-eligible, pointing to the Federal Circuit’s Enfish decision, which observes that many advancements in computer technology, “by their very nature, may not be defined by particular physical features but rather by logical structures and processes.” Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The ARP decision further explains that the claims at issue stand rejected under § 103, demonstrating that §§ 102, 103, and 112 are the traditional and appropriate tools to limit patent protection to its proper scope."
Copyright © 2025 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
