Dans Bancorp Services, L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada (U.S.), Fed. Cir., No. 2011-1467, la Federal Circuit a statué qu’une revendication d’un système incluant un ordinateur mettant en oeuvre des étapes évidentes permettant de résoudre un problème plus rapidement n’est pas brevetable.

As we have explained, “[s]imply adding a ‘computer aided’ limitation to a claim covering an abstract concept, without more, is insufficient to render the claim patent eligible.â€Â� …

To salvage an otherwise patent-ineligible process, a computer must be integral to the claimed invention, facilitating the process in a way that a person making calculations or computations could not. … Thus, as we held in Fort Properties, Inc. v. American Master Lease LLC, [671 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2012)], the limitation “using a computerâ€Â� in an otherwise abstract concept did not “ ‘play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed.’ â€Â� … The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.

 

Pour les praticiens en PI

Dans Ergo Licensing v. CareFusion 303 (Fed. Cir. 2012) la Federal Circuit des États-Unis a déterminé:

If special programming is required for a general purpose computer to perform the corresponding claimed function, then the default rule requiring disclosure of an algorithm applies. It is only in the rare circumstances where any general-purpose computer without any special programming can perform the function that an algorithm need not be disclosed.

Thus, the means-plus-function limitation has no corresponding structure in the specification because « there is no algorithm described in any form for the function of ‘controlling the adjusting means.' » As a result, the claim is invalid as indefinite.