在當前這個時代，商業和科技已成為世界上數十億人生活方方面面不可或缺的一部分。電腦技術的飛速發展和網際網路的普及促進了商業方法電腦軟體專利的增加，並引起了專利抽象概念的認定上的爭議。因此本研究旨在探討商業方法專利的認定演進，以及美國的判決趨勢和法規變化對實務的影響。
本文首先釐清商業方法發明和電腦軟體發明並不相同，商業方法發明並非僅能夠透過電腦軟體來實施，而電腦軟體也並非僅用於實現商業方法。但由於科技發展和法律規定的改變，在現行制度下非使用電腦軟體之商業方法發明要取得專利資格幾乎不可能，因此本文將聚焦在以電腦軟體實現商業方法之發明專利。
透過電腦和電腦軟體的發展歷程，可以了解到，隨著個人電腦和電腦軟體的普及，運用電腦軟體的商業方法專利也越來越常見。本文藉由數個代表性案例，分析了美國法院在1900年代至今對於抽象概念之專利適格性的見解。
在1980年代之後，美國法院對電腦軟體專利適格性的接受逐漸提高，USPTO對電腦軟體專利的申請也有明顯增長，但也引發批評聲浪。為了提高審查品質，USPTO召開圓桌會議並發表白皮書。到了2012年和2014年，Mayo v. Prometheus案和Alice v. CLS案的判決建立了影響至今的「兩步測試法」，並對於到電腦軟體專利的申請和審查上產生深刻的影響。
在分析商業方法和電腦軟體發明之間的差異和美國法院對於專利抽象概念的認定演進後，為了進一步探究近期美國法院對於商業方法發明的態度，本文篩選近4年間，CAFC作成所有涉及商業方法電腦軟體專利適格性之判決。並透過分析法院對於「兩步測試法」的實踐，歸納出申請商業方法電腦軟體專利時，請求項與專利說明書撰寫上應注意之點。
最後，本文認為，專利制度的認定範圍會隨著時代和科技發展而變化，尤其是對於電腦軟體專利的申請和審查標準，可能會因為演算法的抽象性而引發爭議。因此期待透過過往的案例，幫助未來的專利申請者，在快速變遷的科技洪流中，找到可循的軌跡。

Nowadays, business and technology have become an indispensable part for billions of people. The rapid development of computer technology and internet have increased the software patents. Patent eligibility of computer software became highly controversial, this article aims to explore the evolution of the recognition of software patents under law of the United States.
This article first clarifies that business method patent and software patents are not the same. Business method inventions can be implemented without software, and software patents have a variety of functions besides business applications. However, due to technological advancements, non-software-based business method inventions are almost impossible to obtain patent eligibility under current US patent law. Therefore, this article will focus on the discussion of software-based business method inventions.
With the popularity of personal computers and software, software inventions have become common. Due to the characteristic of algorithms and software inventions, algorithms and software inventions are frequently considered as abstract idea. In order to understand the courts’ review standards for software patents, this article analyzes several leading cases from the 1900s to the present. And finds that in 1980s, the US courts and USPTO gradually accepted the patent eligibility for software inventions. However, there were also some doubts about the quality of software patents. To respond to these doubts, USPTO held Roundtable Forum and published White Paper: Automated Financial or Management Data Processing Method. In 2012 and 2014, “Two-Step Test,” which was built by Mayo v. Prometheus and Alice v. CLS, affect modern patent examination of software inventions. How to persuade patent examiners and judges to recognize the technical arts and inventive concepts of software patents become important.
After analyzing the patent examination of abstract concept, this article concludes that the scope of patent eligibility will change with the times and technological developments. This article aims to provide future guidance for future software patent applicants.

中文文獻
專書及政府文獻
Nell Dale & John Lewis（著），徐金全、施松村、劉建源、施弼耀（譯）（2011），《計算機概論》，第三版，滄海書局。
林洲富（2022），《專利法—案例式》，修訂十版，五南。
陳文吟（2014），《我國專利制度之研究》，六版，五南。
陳慧貞（2018），《最新計算機概論》，第八版，碁峰資訊。
陳龍昇（2019），《專利法》，五版，元照。
曹中（2021），《計算機概論概要》，增修版，大東海。
經濟部智慧財產局（2015），《美國專利須知》。
經濟部智慧財產局（2021），《專利審查基準彙編》。
經濟部中小企業處（2022），《中小企業白皮書》。
楊崇森（2014），《專利法理論與應用》，修訂四版，三民。
劉國讚（2020），《專利侵害實務與理論》，初版，元照。
數位新知（2009），《解析！計算機概論》，初版，上奇科技。
期刊論文
吉玉成（2004），〈商業方法軟體專利之標的適格性研究以比較法之研究為中心〉，《科技法學評論》，第1卷第1期，頁123-161。
朱浩筠（2021），〈我國電腦軟體相關發明審查基準有關適格性與進步性之修訂沿革及其剖析〉，《智慧財產權月刊》，第275期，頁6-27。
李清祺、馮聖原（2015），〈電腦軟體發明專利制度探討——我國與歐洲制度發展的演進〉，《智慧財產權月刊》，第201期，頁48-91。
陳佳麟、劉尚志、蘇裕鈞（2000），〈電腦軟體與電子商務專利之發展與策略（上）〉，《智慧財產權月刊》，第20期，頁38-57。
陳龍昇（2006），〈淺論電腦軟體之商業方法發明於我國法之保護〉，《萬國法律》，第145期，頁67-78。
陳龍昇（2012），〈由美國Bilski v. Kappos案探討商業方法發明之專利適格性〉，《臺北大學法學論叢》，第84期，頁231-286。
陳豐年（2011），〈專利權之歷史溯源與利弊初探〉，《智慧財產權月刊》，第156期，頁63-87。
黃文儀（2014），〈論方法發明之可專利性〉，《專利師》，第16期，頁1-29。
葉美雪（2007），〈美國設計專利類型的揭露要件與權利保護範圍〉，《智慧財產權月刊》，第101期，頁30-63。
葉昭蘭、劉國讚（2019），〈後Alice時代電腦軟體專利說明書撰寫之研究〉，《專利師》，第37期，頁126-150。
葉雲卿（2019），〈新一代Alice/Mayo二階段軟體專利適格性判斷基準之形成與運用〉，《智慧財產評論》，第15卷第2期，頁21-80。
劉國讚、徐偉甄（2015），〈電腦軟體之專利標的適格性在美國的演變——從Bilski到Alice判決〉，《專利師》，第22期，頁100-123。
網路資料
林呈潢（1995），《國家教育研究院》，載於：http://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/1680917/ （最後瀏覽日：02/03/2023）。 
英文文獻
Books, Reports, and Other Nonperiodic Materials
Hoag, Arleen J. & John H. Hoag, Introductory Economics, 4th ed. (2006).
Knuth, Donald Ervin, The Art of Computer Programming, 2nd ed. (1974).
Linzmayer, Owen W., Apple Confidential 2.0: The Definitive History of the World's Most Colorful Company, 2nd ed (2004).
Parkin, Michael, Microeconomics, 10th ed. (2011).
United States Patent and Trademark Office, A USPTO White Paper: Automated Financial or Management Data Processing Method (Business Methods) (2000).
United States Patent and Trademark Office, White Paper - Automated Business Methods - Section III Class 705 (2011).
United States Patent and Trademark Office, PTO-P-2014-0058, 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (2014).
United States Patent and Trademark Office, PTO-P-2015-0034, July 2015 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (2015).
United States Patent and Trademark Office, PTO-P-2018-0053, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019).
Periodical Materials
Anderson, J. Jonas, Secret Inventions, 26 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 917 (2011).
Asaya, Clark D., Patenting Elasticities, 91 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1 (2017).
Asaya, Clark D., Patent Pacifism, 85 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 645 (2017).
Asaya, Clark D., The Informational Value of Patents, 31 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 259 (2015).
Baird, Kevin M., Business Method Patents: Chaos at The USPTO or Business as Usual?, 2001 (2) J.L. Tech. & Pol'y 346 (2001).
Bock, Jeremy W., Patent Quantity, 38 U. Haw. L. Rev. 287 (2016).
Craig, Joseph Allen, Deconstructing Wonderland: Making Sense of Software Patent in A Post-Alice World?, 32 Berkeley Tech. L. J. 359 (2017).
Dreyfuss, Rochelle C., Are Business Method Patents Bad for Business?, 16 Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. L.J., 263 (2000).
Duffy, John F., Rethinking the Prospect Theory of Patents, 71 U. Chi. L. Rev. 439 (2004).
Erstling, Jay A. & Frederik W. Struve, A Framework for Patent Exhaustion from Foreign Sales, 25 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J. 499 (2015).
Ginsburg, Jane C., The U.S. Experience with Mandatory Copyright Formalities: A Love/Hate Relationship, 33 Colum. J.L. & Arts 311 (2010).
Graham, Stuart J.H. & Ted Sichelman, Why Do Start-Ups Patent?, 23 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 1063 (2008).
Graham, Stuart J.H. et al., High Technology Entrepreneurs and the Patent System: Results of the 2008 Berkeley Patent Survey, 24 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 1255 (2009).
Hall, Bronwyn H., Business and Financial Method Patents, Innovation, and Policy, 56 Scottish J. Pol. Econ., 443 (2009).
Hart, Robert et al., The Economic Impact of Patentability of Computer Programs, Intell. Prop. I.1 (2001).
Herrell, Jonas P., The Copyright Misuse Doctrine's Role in Open and Closed Technology Platforms, 26 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 441 (2011).
Hinchliffe, Sarah, Class 705 Business Method Patents in The United States: A Study from 1998 to 2010, 69 Drake L. Rev. 73 (2021).
Hulme, E. Wyndham, The History of The Patent System Under the Prerogative and at Common Law, 12 L.Q. Rev. 141 (1896).
International Bureau of World Intellectual Property Organization, Model Provisions on the Protection of Computer Software, 11 (1) L. & Computer Tech. 2 (1978).
Kalpakidou, Anatoli, Business Method Patents. Should They Survive In Europe?, 13 Int'l J.L. & Info. Tech. 243 (2005).
Kim, Donald D. et al., Annual Industry Accounts: Advance Statistics on GDP by Industry for 2008, 89 (5) Surv. Current Bus. 22 (2009).
Kyle, Chris R., But A New Button to An Old Coat: The Enactment of The Statute of Monopolies, 19 J. Legal Hist. 203 (1998).
Lauzon, Elizabeth D., Patentability Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 Which Excludes Laws of Nature, Physical Phenomena, and Abstract Ideas, 5 A.L.R. Fed. 3d Art. 4 (2015).
Lemley, Mark A., The Surprising Virtues of Treating Trade Secrets as IP Rights, 61 Stan. L. Rev. 311 (2008).
Lessig, Lawrence, Online Patents: Leave Them Pending, Wall St.J. 23 (2000).
Long, Clarisa, Patent Signals, 69 U. Chi. L. Rev. 625 (2002).
McKenna, Mark P., The Normative Foundations of Trademark Law, 82 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1839 (2007).
Moffat, Viva R., Mutant Copyrights and Backdoor Patents: The Problem of Overlapping Intellectual Property Protection, 19 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 1473 (2004).
Parchomovsky, Gideon & R. Polk Wagner, Patent Portfolios, 154 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1 (2005).
Pearce, Russell G., Redressing Inequality in the Market for Justice: Why Access to Lawyers Will Never Solve the Problem and Why Rethinking the Role of Judges Will Help, 73 Fordham L. Rev. 969 (2005).
Rydstrom, Jean F., Patentability of computer programs, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 156 (1971).
Samuelson, Pamela et al., Symposium: Toward a Third Intellectual Property Paradigm: Article: A Manifesto Concerning the Legal Protection of Computer Programs, 94 Colum. L. Rev. 2308 (1994).
Schwartz, David L., The Rise of Contingent Fee Representation in Patent Litigation, 64 Ala. L. Rev. 335 (2012).
Sfekas, James S., Comment, Controlling Business Method Patents: How the Japanese Standard for Patenting Software Could Bring Reasonable Limitations to Business Method Patents in The United States, 16 Pac. Rim L. & Pol'y J. 197 (2007).
Somerson, Paul, The New Era: IBM’s Breakthrough PC AT, PC Magazine, 123 (1984).
Spulber, Daniel F., Market Microstructure and Intermediation, 10 J. Econ. Persp., 135 (1996).
Spulber, Daniel F., Should Business Method Inventions Be Patentable?, 3 J. Legal Analysis 265 (2011).
Thaler, Stephen L., DABUS in a Nutshell, 19 APA Newsl. on Philosophy and Computers 40 (2019).
Varela, Stephanie L., Note, Damned If You Do, Doomed If You Don't: Patenting Legal Methods and Its Effect on Lawyers' Professional Responsibilities, 60 Fla. L. Rev. 1145 (2008).
Wagner, Stefan, Business Method Patents in Europe and Their Strategic Use – Evidence from Franking Device Manufacturers, 17 (3) Eco- nomics of Innovation and New Tech 173 (2008).
Yang, Grant C., The Continuing Debate of Software Patents and The Open Source Movement, 13 Tex. Intell. Prop. L.J. 171, (2005).
Zivojnovic, Ognjen, Patentable Subject Matter After Alice——Distinguishing Narrow Software Patents from Overly Broad Business Method Patents, 30 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 807 (2015).
The Internet, Electronic Media, and Other Nonprint Resources
Aharonian, Greg, Stupid Patent of the Month, Patent News Service, https://www.eff.org/issues/stupid-patent-month (last visited Mar. 2, 2023).
Intel, Explore Intel’s history, Intel Museum, https://timeline.intel.com/ (last visited Mar. 2, 2023).
Quinn, Gene, How to Patent Software in a Post Alice Era, IPWatchingdog. com (2016), https://ipwatchdog.com/2016/11/17/patent-software-post-alice/id=74750/ (last visited Mar. 2, 2023).
Saltiel, Joseph, Marshall Gerstein & Borun LLP, In the Courts: Five Years After Alice - Five Lessons Learned from the Treatment of Software Patents in Litigation, WIPO Magazine (2019), https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2019/04/article_0006.html (last visited Mar. 2, 2023).
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Business Methods, https://www.uspto.gov/patents/basics/types-patent-applications/utility-patent/patent-business.html (last visited Mar. 2, 2023).
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Class 705 Application Filing and Patents Issued Data, USPTO, https://www.uspto.gov/patents/basics/types-patent-applications/utility-patent/business-methods-18 (last visited Mar. 2, 2023).
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Classification Resources — Class 705, https://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc705/defs705.htm (last visited Mar. 2, 2023).
United States Patent and Trademark Office, 2209 Ex Parte Reexamination [R-10.2019] , https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2209.html (last visited Mar. 2, 2023).
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Examination Guidelines for Computer-Related Inventions, https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/og/con/files/cons093.htm (last visited Mar. 2, 2023).
World Intellectual Property Organization, Computer programs and business models, https://www.wipo.int/patents/en/topics/software.html (last visited Mar. 2, 2023)
World Intellectual Property Organization, Copyright Protection of Computer Software, https://www.wipo.int/copyright/en/activities/software.html (last visited Mar. 2, 2023).
World Intellectual Property Organization, IP and Software, https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2008/06/article_0006.html (last visited Mar. 2, 2023).