To pass muster under the Alice two-step test, the claims must provide sufficient specificity to constitute an improvement to computer functionality itself.
Results for patentable subject matter
Claims directed to a mathematical algorithms and mental processes without recitations of how they are applied are unpatentable under Section 101.
Claims directed to a natural law without recitations of how to apply the natural law are unpatentable under Section 101.
Using the subject matter eligibility examples provided by the USPTO does not guarantee that the claims comply with 35 U.S.C. § 101—especially claim 1 of Example 29.
The Supreme Court held that an invention claimed as a process that is (a) defined by an algorithm with no practical use except in the programmed manipulation of signals in a digital computer, and (b) not limited to a subset of possible applications, do not fall within the requirements of statutory subject matter under Section 101.
The Federal Circuit holds that “method of treatment” claims are patentable under the Bilski machine-or-transformation test because the administration of a drug to a person results in a transformation of a human body.