Voip Pal Com Inc (VPLM)

[invent4]

I tried to understand ALICE myself. As you are the second person asking for ALICE clarification, perhaps this will help.

In 2014 SCOTUS ruled against ALICE Corp. on the basis of their patent being abstract and without inventive process.

Inventors have to prove to examiners that what they are providing in their application really is an invention, not something that is common knowledge, and not some nebulous idea that can be executed without a detailed and truly inventive process -> basically what the courts call abstract.

An example of Alice failure would be claiming to make a Sky background in a painting glow or glitter with varying colors using a paint program on a computer. The glittering sky may be unique but a process to make the glow has to be declared and that process has to be inventive not simply using known software routines and devices.

That decision has affected a lot of software developers and since 2014, patent examiners have been trained to be very critical of "abstractness" in patent applications. Recently issued VPLM patents had to pass this test in order to be granted.