しらべベース / 全サイトを探す米国特許しらべの条件検索・比較保存範囲・台帳
米国特許しらべ

Request for Comments on Determining Whether a Claim Element Is Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional for Purposes of Subject Matter Eligibility

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) recently issued a decision regarding the inquiry of whether a claim limitation represents well-understood, routine, conventional activities (or elements) to a skilled artisan in the relevant field. Specifically, the Federal Circuit found that whether a claim element, or combination of elements, represents well-understood, routine, conventional activities to a skilled artisan in the relevant field is a question of fact. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has implemented this decision in a memorandum recently issued to the Patent Examining Corps (the Berkheimer memorandum). The Berkheimer memorandum is available to the public on the USPTO's internet website. Examiners had been previously instructed to conclude that an element (or combination of elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity only when the examiner can readily conclude that the element(s) is widely prevalent or in common use in the relevant industry. The Berkheimer memorandum now clarifies that such a conclusion must be based upon a factual determination that is supported as discussed in the memorandum. Aditionally the Berkheimer memorandum now also specifies that the analysis for determining whether an element (or combination of elements) is widely prevalent or in common use is the same as the analysis under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as to whether an element is so well-known that it need not be described in detail in the patent specification. The USPTO is now seeking public comment on its subject matter eligibility guidance, and particularly its guidance in the Berkheimer memorandum to the Patent Examining Corps.

Task
Read the news
Patent or trademark
both
Legacy system
—
Current entry point
www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/04/20/2018-08428/request-for-comments-on-determining-whether-a-claim-element-is-well-understood-routine-conventional (permanent link in the Federal Register, verified 2026-09-30)
Legacy system and where it moved
No legacy system name mention in title or summary )
Fee
No fee mention in title or summary )
What you need (account or API key)
No account or key mention in title or summary )
Published
2018-04-20
Document type
Notice
Source
USPTO documents published in the Federal Register (Federal Register API)(retrieved 2026-10-06)

Everything in the same category

Read the news (all 1988) · both (all 2333)

Related entry points

All USPTO service