New Guidelines for Computer Implmented Inventions. Are we still clear on what is Statutory?

It was on 8’th August 2013 that the Patent Office, based on feedback from numerous stakeholders, came out with yet another draft of guidelines on subject matters that relate to Computer Implemented Inventions, interchangeably also referred to as Computer Related Inventions (CRI) hereinafter. The mandate of the instant article is not to assess or question the reasoning behind the defined statute or legislative history thereof, but instead to assume validity of Section(k) and evaluate whether the new guidelines actually give clarity on what would be held statutory from a technology standpoint or whether it “almost” re-iterates the earlier manual guidelines and leaves it on the patent application, the Applicant, its Patent Agent/Attorney, and the Examiner to figure out the fate of the Application.

As a quick background, Section 3(k) was first introduced in Indian patent law by the Patent (Amendment) Act, 2002 and through Patent (Amendment) Ordinance, 2004 prohibiting the grant of patents for: “a mathematical or business method or a computer programme per se or algorithms”. Criticism on the subject of patentability of software inventions came focused on the phrase “per se” that is used in alliance with software inventions in the Indian Patent Act and ironically “per se” is still not defined in Indian statute, but the issued manual now directs to interpret the word per se as per its dictionary meaning. Patent practice Manual published by the Indian Patent Office (IPO) states (page 9)here that “If the claimed subject matter in a patent application is only a computer programme, it is considered as a computer programme per se and hence not patentable. Claims directed at ‘computer programme products’ are computer programmes per se stored in a computer readable medium and as such are not allowable. Even if the claims, inter alia, contain a subject matter which is not a computer programme, it is examined whether such subject matter is sufficiently disclosed in the specification and forms an essential part of the invention.” The major question that loomed even after this clarification was whether the patentability would be assessed merely based on how the claim has been written or whether the underlying claimed technical subject matter would be taken into account to assess whether there is a tangible output and technical effect caused by the subject matter. In an instance, numerous illustrations of issued patents which relate to simple business methods such as for computing applicable tax, answering a dynamic questionnaire have been issued post the publication of existing manual, where a simple amendment to the claims was made by the Applicant to remove the computer readable medium (CRM) claims and get the issuance. Such a situation gave rise to a high priority issue of whether “how we write the claims” dictates if we get an issuance or whether the actual subject matter also makes a difference. I earnestly hope it does!!

Coming back to the recent draft guidelines, it has initially been rationalized that as subject matters relating to computer programmes do not fall under the category of “manner of manufacture”, they are not held statutory. Furthermore, in addition to certain dictionary meanings of “per se”, “firmware”, and “hardware”, the draft highlights what constitutes a technical effect in 3.15, which includes the usual constituents of higher speed, reduced hard-disk access time, compression, but also highlights “improved user interface” as being an acceptable parameter for substantiating “technical effect”. To our understanding, improvement in user interfaces (UI), which includes, without limitation, graphical user interfaces, completely involve a mere programming through a set of instructions which enhance the user feel, look and experience of the underlying software/web application and does not necessarily require an underlying hardware to enable improvement in the UI. Inclusion of such a criterion, might later be relied upon by Applicants to secure patents on their improved user experience, which on the other hand, might well be a subject matter of a Copyright registration.  According to wikipedia, “graphical user interface (GUI, sometimes pronounced ‘gooey’)is a type of user interface that allows users to interact with electronic devices through graphical icons and visual indicators such as secondary notation, as opposed to text-based interfaces, typed command labels or text navigation.”

Section 3.16 also mentions that technical advancement would always result in technical effect, which again raises doubts as technical advancements has not been defined specifically. For instance, an application that relates to a method of booking a ticket online from one location to another, wherein the method claims significant shortening of time for the booking, may involve a technical advancement/means by forming and executing a dynamic query based on user profile and present location, but might still be rendered non-patentable as the method relates to a business method, which is excluded subject matter.

Subsequent to the above, the draft also highlights certain claims that may constitute computer programme per se. In view of the same, as also mentioned above, I wonder if its only the manner in which the claim is written that is being evaluated or even the subject matter in totality being assessed. To help illustrate, in Example 3 on page 14 of the draft, we see a claim that pertains to a method of detecting vulnerabilities in a source code, in which method, the variables in the source code are analyzed to create models of arguments, which are further assessed along with pre-specified criteria to determine if vulnerabilities exist. Even though the above claim has been declared to be a computer program per se, I wonder what the fate of the claim would have been had it been reworded to limit the claimed algorithm to “detect whether the variables face memory allocation/deallocation vulnerability”, as detection of memory allocation/deallocation vulnerability can help optimize the performance of memory as a whole and hence may have fallen under 3’rd point of technical effect parameters mentioned in 3.15 (page 10) of the draft. I wish clarity could have been given on this aspect of wording in claim assessment vs. actual subject matter in context.

Although, we do appreciate that all subject matters showing technical effect (and hence being statutory) might not necessarily result in technical advancement (3.16 of draft), it sometimes becomes subjective to assess if mere inclusion of technical elements, which is believed to output a technical effect, should be held statutory. For instance, point 4.2, page 15 of the draft, gives an exemplary statutory claim, which upon a brief read relates to an apparatus for providing secure communication by receiving an access request from a device, sending the request to a web server, and reconfiguration of the device for authentication based on certain parameters. After going through the claim and segregating the individual elements, which have limitations of various constructional elements such as device, local web server, wireless network, reconfiguration module, I wonder if this aggregation of technical elements is all it takes to constitute a technical effect, as none of these elements, individually or collectively, do practically clearly indicate the actual novel technical feature of the claimed subject matter (which is also mentioned as a test in 5.4.6). For instance, use of a packet traffic filter means and incorporation of a structural element for redirecting web requests before being directly sent to the wireless network have been known ever since web-request security measure have been implemented and companies such as Fortigate have been using such means from years. Moreover, it would have been much easier if the guideline the actual point in the claim that shows the technical effect, keeping in context 3.15. At the same time, subject matters which, for instance, relate to run-time processing of network packets by a gateway device to extract application type of the packet and determine whether the packet is an attack packet or a valid packet, may have a technical effect by being run at a network layer of the OSI but may not result in a technical/hardware efficiency advancement per se, but makes the firewall software more proactive.

Furthermore, Section 5 of the manual mentions the basis of examination and particularly, in section 5.4 mentions grounds relating to technical advancement and technical effect. Sections 5.4.5 and 5.4.6 stress the importance of presence of a novel hardware in the claimed subject matter for it to be held statutory. However, examination of numerous examples of issued patents, not only in India, but even in similar regime based geographies such as EP, that its not necessarily the incorporation of a novel hardware, but instead that the proposed technical effect of the claimed subject matter is that matter, which could well be without incorporation of a new hardware. For instance, a method for storage of data in a particular sequence/manner in the same existing database may lead to enhanced technical effect by reducing the processing time of a given set of instructions, and hence the hardware responsible for the technical enhancement might not actually be new but instead, an existing hardware can also be configured in a manner that makes it optimally and technically efficient. Moreover, it may not be about the hardware itself but instead about a novel computing architecture that configures instructions to be processed in a specific manner and sequence that creates a technically efficient solution. For instance, a multi-mode mobile wireless communications device architecture having an application layer, a services layer interfacing the applications layer, a multi-mode layer interfacing the service layer, and a hardware layer interfacing the multi-mode layer may not include any new change in hardware or any new hardware itself, but instead only the architecture of how different known pieces of hardware share/process data/instructions between themselves that is statutory.

Lastly, section 5-7 mentions exemplary cases giving decisions of the controller in such cases. Unfortunately, none of the cases actually raise confusion between what is statutory and what is not, as all the subject matters are fairly straightforward business methods having clear commercial intent and do not demonstrate any technical enhancement. It is actually the actual non-commercial based technology patents that raise the actual 3k issue. Page 43-46 of the manual does give a flowchart based on which an assessment of computer programmes can be done but it is debatable if all the “OR” cases mentioned on Page 46 are actually exhaustive in nature and cover all possible non-statutory subject matter. Page 44 mentions, line with the EPO practice, to separate the claim into technical and non-technical features but then does not mention how extracted technical features should be further evaluated for patentability. Once it is determined that the subject matter relates to computer programmes, it has been mentioned on Page 46 that it is checked as to whether the subject matter falls in any of the below mentioned categories:

  1. If the claims are directed to a set of instructions/routines (thereby excluding CRM claims)
  2. If the claims are directed to CPP/Storage or Database Mediums
  3. If the claims are directed to automation
  4. If the claims do not include any structural feature.

The question also lies as to whether it should be assumed that the above list is exhaustive and anything that does not fall within the above sphere would be statutory. Take for instance, below mentioned two ?? exemplary cases, which have been recently issued by IPO and take a call on whether they should have been rendered statutory:

  • 160/MUM/2004 corresponding to 256583, wherein it was argued that the claimed subject matter is not a computer program per se as it involves a technical process focusing on changing the presentation of query results from a first format to another format using a configuration file. The scrutiny of the claims is self explanatory and would not be deliberated being a matter of personal opinion.
  • 1398/DELNP/2003corresponding to 256171 makes it hard to believe that 3(k) is strictly applied by the IPO to subject matters and instead it, by looking at prosecution histories, appears that it’s the type of claim (system gaining prominence over method) that makes a dent. Looking at the first issued claim, we do not even find support of “transmitter” in the specification and find it difficult to get a clear and convincing evidence of technical effect of the instant subject matter. Going through the file titled “1398-DELNP-2003-Correspondence-Others-(19-01-2009).pdf”, makes me find it difficult to comprehend as to whether such set of arguments are enough to get issuances.

About the Author: Mr. Tarun Khurana, Partner and Patent Attorney at Khurana & Khurana and can be reached at:

Follow us on Twitter: @KnKIPLaw.

Leave a Reply



  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010