Claim limitations reciting specific steps of functionality and description in the specification describing the improvements achieved to such steps in particular help satisfy the Alice test for patent-eligible subject matter.
Results for 35 U.S.C. § 101
Claims directed to a mathematical algorithms and mental processes without recitations of how they are applied are unpatentable under Section 101.
The specification does not need to expressly list why the claimed invention is unconventional if the claims recite what is inventive, Berkheimer applies to motions under Rule 12(b)(6) in addition to applying at the summary judgment stage, and the presumption of patent validity includes a presumption of patent-eligibility.
Claims may be directed to a technological improvement over the prior art and deemed patent-eligible subject matter even if the claims do not recite complete technical details, so long as the technological improvement is sufficiently described within the written description.
If a claim is specific and not preemptive, it can be valid under § 101.
The decision to institute CBM review is not appealable, however issues decided during the CBM review process, regardless of when they first arose, are reviewable on appeal if they are part of or predicate to the ultimate merits. Also, the requirements of § 101 apply in a § 18 CBM review.