While the claim recited a "processor", the BPAI stated that the recitation did not impose any limits on the claim's scope, nor did it tie the process steps to a particular machine. Furthermore, while claimed "floating-point hardware" may have been a particular machine, the BPAI saw it as "insignificant extra-solution activity" that is not sufficient to transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process.
Regarding claims directed to "computer readable media", the BPAI held that such limitations do not add any practical limitations to the claim scope, as eligibility under Section 101 could not be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment.
Leave a comment