美國聯邦最高法院於2014年6月在Alice v. CLS Bank一案，對軟體的專利適格性（patent eligibility）做出重要判決。許多事務所與網站對於判決的結果與影響都已經有很詳細的分析，在此就不再贅述。在此判決中原告Alice的專利主要有四篇(5,970,479、6,912,510、7,149,720、7,725,375)，其中代表性的專利為美國專利第5,970,479號的申請專利範圍第33項：

33. A method of exchanging  obligations as between parties, each  party holding a credit record and a  debit record with an exchange institution, the credit records and debit records for exchange of predetermined obligations,  the method comprising the steps of: 

  (a) creating a shadow credit record and a shadow debit record for each stakeholder party  to be held independently by a supervisory institution from the exchange institutions;

  (b) obtaining from each exchange institution a start-of-day balance for each shadow  credit record and shadow debit record;

  (c) for  every transaction resulting in an exchange obligation, the supervisory  institution adjusting each respective party's shadow credit record or shadow  debit record, allowing only these transactions that do not result in the value  of the shadow debit record being less than the value of the shadow credit  record at any time, each said adjustment taking place in chronological order;  and

  (d) at  the end-of-day, the supervisory institution instructing ones of the exchange  institutions to exchange credits or debits to the credit record and debit  record of the respective parties in accordance with the adjustments of the said  permitted transactions, the credits and debits being irrevocable, time  invariant obligations placed on the exchange institutions.

  這是篇商業方法的專利，講述的內容大概需要商科背景的人才看得懂吧，但是內容中並沒有很明顯地提到一個硬體。在ALICE判例之前，在商業方法或軟體專利的撰寫時，通常在申請專利範圍內通常會加入一個硬體以免落入U.S.C. 101有關於專利適格性的核駁。看起來可以當作硬體的有兩個elements: exchange institution與supervisory institution，但這兩個elements都無法很明顯的看出是否為電腦實體。雖然此專利的標題與發明內容都說本篇專利是有關於電腦與資料處理系統，但是看起來偏向於商業方法的保護，在專利訴訟中就會存在爭議。在此判決結果後，商業方法的訴訟明顯的降低許多，商業方法的申請專利範圍也不再允許寫得那麼抽象。商業方法或軟體的專利需要更明確的說明如何應用電腦(資料結構、處理器等)來達到某種功效，不然很容易落入U.S.C. 101有關於專利適格性的核駁。在此案例之前，美國的商業方法與軟體專利應該是認定最寬鬆的國家之一(應該是唯一，但是話不敢說那麼滿)，有了此案例，很多商業方法的專利都已經被判無效。爾後的專利，若以類似型態申請，遭到核駁的機率會很高，因此在專利範圍內應明確寫明如何應用實體來達到此方法或效果，獲取專利的機率才會較高，但能否在訴訟中獲勝，那又是另外一回事了。

35 U.S.C. 102 -

(a)Novelty; Prior Art.—A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—

(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or

任何人應有權獲授專利，除非 - 

在所請發明有效申請日前，所請技術已被他人獲准授予專利、載於刊物、公開使用、為販售之用或可為公眾取得。

(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.

任何人應有權獲授專利，除非 -

所請發明已載於依35 USC 151公告之專利或依35 USC 122(b)公開之專利申請案，而該專利或申請案所列發明人另有其人，且於所請發明的申請日在其有效申請日之前。

(c)Common Ownership Under Joint Research Agreements.—Subject matter disclosed and a claimed invention shall be deemed to have been owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person in applying the provisions of subsection (b)(2)(C) if-

(1) the subject matter disclosed was developed and the claimed invention was made by, or on behalf of, 1 or more parties to a joint research agreement that was in effect on or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention;

(2) the claimed invention was made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of the joint research agreement; and

(3) the application for patent for the claimed invention discloses or is amended to disclose the names of the parties to the joint research agreement.

以共同研究協議下的共享所有權關係─對於35 USC 102(b)(2)(C)之應用，若有以下狀況，所屬的技術內容與所請發明應視為同人所有，或有義務轉讓予同人 - 

(1) 所公開的技術已被研發且所求保護的發明是由或代表協議的一方或多方在所求保護之發明的有效申請日期之前的共同研究

(2) 所求保護的發明是在共同研究協議規範內進行的結果。

(3) 所求保護的發明的專利申請為公開共同研究協議的參與者名稱。

(d)Patents and Published Applications Effective as Prior Art.—For purposes of determining whether a patent or application for patent is prior art to a claimed invention under subsection (a)(2), such patent or application shall be considered to have been effectively filed, with respect to any subject matter described in the patent or application—

專利及公開的申請案用作先前技術─為判斷一專利或專利申請案對所請發明是否構成35 USC 102(a)(2)先前技術，該專利或申請案（所描述的任何主體內容）應視同為於以下時點即已有效申請。

35 U.S.C. 103 -

A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.

所請發明並無U.S.C. 102所述的事項，但若所求保護的發明與現有技術之間的差異，以整體視之，在所求保護的發明的有效申請日期之前，為所請發明之所屬技術領域之人顯而易見，則仍不能准予專利。

美國司法是採用判例法則，藉由每個個案的審理，以提供判斷非顯而易見性的規則，因此，根據不同的時代背景，對於不同類型的專利申請案，時而寬鬆，時而嚴謹，較有名的判例，如Graham案、KSR案或Alice案等。

在Hotchkiss v. Greenwood案中，系爭專利是以黏土取代習知以金屬或木頭為材料製成門把，法院認為雖然以黏土取代金屬等材料較為經濟或實用，但以黏土取代金屬材料，在技術上並無任何創造性，故不具非顯而易見性。因此，發明技術需對現有之技術具有新的啟發或教示，而這樣的啟發或教示需要為非顯而易見的，方可專利。

在Graham v. John Deere Co.案中，系爭專利是一種關於耕田用的可震動犁的結構，在此判例中，提出非顯而易見性的分析規則：(1)確定先前技術的界定範圍；(2)系爭專利與前案的技術差異；(3)確定系爭專利之相關領域的技術水平；(4)考量系爭專利之客觀證據為顯而易見或非顯而易見。

因此，在非顯而易見性的判斷上，若所請之專利的技術為簡單的結合，或者為本領域具有通常知識者可以容易推想得到的，就無法通過非顯而易見的核駁。

35 U.S.C. 112 -

(a)In General.—

The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.

專利說明書應包含發明的書面描述，以及製造和使用發明的方式和過程，以清楚、簡潔和正確的術語，使本領域技術人員能夠理解，並可據以實施，並且應闡述由實施發明人或聯合發明人所設想的最佳模式(best mode)。

(b)Conclusion.—

The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.

專利說明書應包含並清楚地指出發明人或聯合發明人所欲請求之一個或多個專利請求項。

(c)Form.—

A claim may be written in independent or, if the nature of the case admits, in dependent or multiple dependent form.

專利請求項可為獨立請求項、附屬請求項或多重附屬請求項等形式表示。

(d)Reference in Dependent Forms.—

Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.

附屬請求項應參考其所依附之獨立請求項，然後進一步闡述專利標的之限制。附屬請求項應被解釋為包含所依附之獨立請求項的所有限制。

(e)Reference in Multiple Dependent Form.—

A claim in multiple dependent form shall contain a reference, in the alternative only, to more than one claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A multiple dependent claim shall not serve as a basis for any other multiple dependent claim. A multiple dependent claim shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the particular claim in relation to which it is being considered.

多重附屬請求項不應作為任何其他多重附屬請求項的基礎。

(f)Element in Claim for a Combination.—

An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.

專利請求項的元件可以功能手段用語表示(mean plus function)，若以功能手段用語來表示請求項的元件，在說明書必須要有對應的結構、材料或動作及其等同物，以避免請求項得不到說明書的支持。

雖然專利法規定要揭露最佳模式(best mode)，但也未見任何專利申請書因為未揭露最佳模式而遭到核駁。但在使用功能手段用語上需要額外小心，很容易因未獲得說明書的支持而遭到核駁。關於112的核駁，大都是以修改說明書或請求項即可克服，但不可加入new matter。