我國於西元1998年公布了電腦軟體相關發明審查基準後，係陸續地修訂了相關基準，直至現今，針對電腦軟體專利審查基準的規定通常可被分為「非利用自然法者」以及「非技術思想者」以判斷電腦軟體專利的申請標的是否符合我國專利法第21條的規定。
而在美國，當Alice案的判決問世後，USPTO則相繼地於西元2014年公布2014專利標的適格性暫定基準，以基於Alice案的判決補充修訂原先的基準指南，使得於西元2014年後的電腦軟體相關申請標的被核駁的案件量大大提升，而於西元2019年1月公布的2019年1月的修訂版後，才讓現今美國對於軟體相關的申請案件正趨於較為穩定的狀況。
本文之研究方法係依據案例研究法、比較分析法、文獻分析法。案例研究法：藉由美國依據35 U.S.C. § 101的審查意見，探討同一申請標的的我國專利案，就我國專利適格性的規定是否可與美國的審查意見相調和為研究對象；比較分析法：主以美國聯邦最高法院於2014年6月判決Alice案後所制定的專利適格性判斷基準為主軸，輔以我國專利適格性的規定進行比較分析，並針對美國與我國於同一申請標的之專利適格性的審查實務上進行比較說明；文獻分析法：蒐集與電腦軟體之專利適格性相關之國內外期刊文章、學位論文、相關法條基準及專利案件等資料，進行整理分析。
本文研究結果：(1) 申請標的若僅是利用人為規則、簡單地將資訊公開、或是單純的應用於電腦上時，其並無法符合專利適格性的相關規定。因此，申請標的本身應為利用自然法則且具有技術性所產生的創作，才可為符合專利適格性的申請標的，進以符合我國專利法第21條的規定。(2)美國於後Alice時期，並未有明顯的案件變化，但在Electric案後，則可明顯看出人工智慧及技術中心2100的被核駁案件量大增，而被核准的案件量則相對減少，直至2019年1月的修訂版，其可看出於商業方法、生物資訊學人工智慧及技術中心2100的領域上，被核駁的案件量皆逐漸的減少，而被核准的案件量則是逐漸地增加。如此，即可看出美國軟體相關的申請案件，現正趨於較為穩定的狀況。(3) 雖美國對於軟體專利的專利適格性審查方向與我國的審查方向具有差異，但在判斷是否符合各要件的概念上(例如美國判斷是否具有顯著超過，與我國判斷是否為簡單利用電腦的概念)則具有相似甚至是相同之處。(4) 雖美國的審查方向與我國的審查方向具有差異，但在判斷要件的概念上，則具有多處相似處，故，有鑑於美國審查委員針對各實務案例提供的審查意見中，皆是指向其技術內容僅是利用一般電腦的功能執行實現，並無法提供抽象概念顯著超過的限制，其與我國之簡單利用電腦規定的內容相呼應，顯見，所研究的各實務案例似有不符合我國軟體專利審查基準之簡單利用電腦規定的疑慮。

After the guidelines examination of the computer and software related invention had been published in A.D. 1998 in Taiwan, the relevant guidelines have been amended successively. Nowadays, the regulation of patent guidelines examination for computer and software normally divides into “non-utilized the laws of nature” and “non-involved the technical character”, to determine whether the patent subject matter relates to the computer and software conforms to the provisions of Article 21 of the Patent Act in Taiwan.
When the verdict of Alice had been decided, USPTO has published 2014 Interim Eligibility Guidance according to the verdict of Alice for supplementing and revising the original guidelines, leading to the rejected applications relate to the computer and software were greatly increased after A.D. 2014. However, after the January 2019 revised version of Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance announced in January 2019, so that the rejections of the subject matter relates to the computer software in America are getting mild and the examination situation is tending to be more stable.
Researching methods of the study are based on the case study research, comparative analysis approach, and document analysis.
Case study research: studying the same subject matter filed in Taiwan according to the official action of 35 U.S.C. § 101 of the United States, and determining whether the provisions in the patent eligibility in Taiwan being reconciled with the official action of 35 U.S.C. § 101 of the United States.
Comparative analysis approach: primarily utilizing the patent eligibility guidance drafted by the United States Supreme Court after the Alice determination in June 2014 as the baseline, supplementally utilizing the provisions of patent eligibility of Taiwan to comparing and analyzing. Furthermore, comparing and explaining the examination practice in the patent eligibility of the same subject matter in Taiwan and America.
Document analysis: collecting the objects of domestic and foreign journal papers, dissertations, relevant legal terms or guidance, and patent cases related to patent eligibility of the computer software.
Researching the result of the study:
1. If the subject matter is only utilizing artificial rules, simply information disclosure, or simply applying to the computer, the relevant regulations of the patent eligibility cannot be complied with thereby. Consequently, the subject matter should utilize the laws of nature and involved the technical character to be the qualified subject matter with the patent eligibility, which is in compliance with the provisions of Article 21 of the Patent Act in Taiwan.
2. After Alice, the volume of rejections greatly increased in the technical field of BizMeth and Bioinformatics. And after Electric, the volume of rejections further increased in the technical field of AI and TC2100, and the volume of approvals decreased relatively. Until January 2019 revised version of Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance announced, the rejections in the technical field of BizMeth, Bioinformatics, AI, and TC2100 are gradually decreasing, while the approvals are relatively increasing. Consequently, it can be alleged that computer software related applications in America are tending to a stable situation.
3. Although the examination direction in the patent eligibility is different between America and Taiwan, in the judgment whether meeting to the concept of each element (e.g. judging to whether involving the significant more in America and judging to whether involving simply applying to the computer in Taiwan) has similarities or even identicals.
4. Although the examination direction in the patent eligibility is different between America and Taiwan, in the judgment of whether meeting to the concept of each element is similarities or even identicals. Therefore, in the light of the comments provided by the Examiner of America are all direct to realizing the function of the general computer, which cannot provide significantly more than the limitation of the abstract idea. It is conforming with the guidance of simply applying to the computer in Taiwan. Obviously, the studied practical cases may not meet the regulation of simply applying to the computer in the patent guidelines examination for computer and software.

中文
法條基準
1.我國專利法，修正日期2019年5月1日。
2.我國專利法逐條釋義，經濟部智慧財產局，103年9月版。
3.我國專利審查基準第二篇發明專利實體審查，經濟部智慧財產局，109年1月1日施行。
論文
1.徐偉甄(2013)，從美國法院判決探討電腦軟體之專利標的適格性之國際調和，國立台灣科技大學專利研究所碩士論文。
2.陳俊文(2016)，美國軟體專利適格性之研究-談審查之趨勢與我國企業的因應之道，國立中央大學產業經濟研究所碩士論文。
3.邱亮儒(2016)，由美國Alice v. CLS Bank案探討電腦軟體相關發明之專利適格性，國立中興大學法律學系科技法律碩士班研究所碩士論文。
4.周鎂惠(2018)，淺談電腦軟體相關發明之專利適格性-從美國聯邦最高法院Alice案出發，國立臺北大學法律學系研究所碩士論文。
5.盧鈞瑋(2020)，論Alice案後之抽象概念與專利適格性，國立交通大學科技法律研究所碩士在職專班研究所碩士論文。
6.葉昭蘭(2018)，美國後Alice時代電腦軟體申請標的適格性判決之研究，國立台灣科技大學專利研究所碩士論文。
期刊文章
1.李秉燊，2019年美國 35 U.S.C. 101專利適格性審查指南必知的5件事，北美智權報229期。
http://www.naipo.com/Portals/1/web_tw/Knowledge_Center/Industry_Economy/IPNC_190123_0701.htm
2.洪振盛，Alice案後美國電腦軟體專利適格性之發展，民國105年07月，智慧財產權月刊VOL.211。
3.陳秉訓，金融科技之專利適格性問題初探，北美智權報231期。
http://www.naipo.com/Portals/1/web_tw/Knowledge_Center/Infringement_Case/IPNC_190227_0502.htm
4.葉昭蘭、劉國讚，後Alice時代電腦軟體專利說明書撰寫之研究，專利師期刊第37期。
http://lawdata.com.tw/File/PDF/J441/A00700037_126.pdf
判決
1.最高法院104年台上字第2980號刑事判決，2015年10月7日。
2.最高法院 81 年台上字第 3063 號民事判決，1992年12月24日。
3.智慧財產法院 100 年行專訴字第 10 號行政判決，2011年7月14日。
專利文獻
1.管理系統與管理方法，專利公告號：I540861，公告日期：2016/7/1。
2.模擬大自然物象的探索遊戲方法、電腦程式產品及系統，專利公告號：I469815，公告日期：2015/1/21。
3.線上學習系統、其能力評量方法以及儲存此能力評量方法之儲存媒體，專利公告號：I575472，公告日期：2017/3/21。
4.即時通訊與遊戲的方法及其系統，專利公告號：I640347，公告日期：2018/11/11。
5.學習估測方法及其電腦系統，專利公告號：I547914，公告日期：2016/9/1。
英文
法條基準
1.USPTO, Preliminary Examination Instructions in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Ply. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al.資料來源：https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/patents/announce/alice_pec_25jun2014.pdf，最後瀏覽日期：2020/2/23。
2.USPTO, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance for 35 U.S.C. 101 Inventions patentable.
3.USPTO, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance for 35 U.S. C. 100 Definitions.
4.USPTO, The 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, issued: January 7, 2019，資料來源：https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-01-07/
pdf/2018-28282.pdf，最後瀏覽日期：2020/1/5。
5.USPTO, Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, Section 2106 of Chapter 2100, 2016 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility [R-08.2017].
6.USPTO, October 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance Update, October 18, 2019,
資料來源：https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/peg_oct_2019
_update.pdf ，最後瀏覽日期：2020/1/5。

期刊文章
1.Tysver Beck Evans, APPLYING STEP TWO OF THE ALICE / MAYO TEST，資料來源：https://www.bitlaw.com/guidance/patent/applying-step-two-of-Alice
-Mayo-test.html，最後瀏覽日期：2020/2/18。
2.Joshua Davenport and Aseet Patel, BANNER WITCOFF, IP Alert: Abstract Ideas: A Common-Sense Distinction in Electric Power Group v. Alstom. August 5, 2016.資料來源：https://bannerwitcoff.com/ip-alert-abstract-ideas-a-common-sense-
distinction-in-electric-power-group-v-alstom/，最後瀏覽日期：2020/3/18。
3.Eugene Molinelli, J.D., Ph.D., Cian O’Brien. J.D., For Abstract Ideas in Patent Eligibility Analysis, All Equations are NOT Equal. 2019.資料來源：https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/eligibility2019comments_f_molinelli_2019feb09.pdf，最後瀏覽日期：2020/1/18。
4.Kate Gaudry & Samuel Hayim, IPWatchdog, Update on 101 Rejections at the USPTO: Prospects for Computer-Related Applications Continue to Improve Post-Guidance, August 13, 2019. 資料來源：https://www.ipwatchdog.com/
2019/08/13/update-101-rejections-uspto-prospects-computer-related-applications-continue-improve-post-guidance/id=112132/，最後瀏覽日期：2020/3/25。
判決
1.MAYO COLLABORATIVE SERVICES, DBA MAYO MEDICAL LABORATORIES, ET AL. v. PROMETHEUS LABORATORIES, INC., SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, No. 10–1150. Argued: December 7, 2011, Decided: March 20, 2012. 資料來源：https://www.supremecourt.gov/
opinions/11pdf/10-1150.pdf，最後瀏覽日期：2020/2/13。
2.ALICE CORPORATION PTY. LTD. v. CLS BANK INTERNATIONAL ET AL., CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, No. 13–298. Argued: March 31, 2014, Decided: June 19, 2014. 資料來源：https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-298_7lh8.pdf，最後瀏覽日期：2020/2/6。
3.ELECTRIC POWER GROUP, LLC, v. ALSTOM S.A., ALSTOM GRID, INC., PSYMETRIX,LTD., ALSTOM LIMITED, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, No. 2:12-cv-06365-JGBRZ.Decided August 1, 2016.資料來源：http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1778.Opinion.7-28-2016.1.PDF，最後瀏覽日期：2020/3/5。
專利文獻
1.MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND MANAGEMENT METHOD，專利公開號：US20160036621A1，公開日期：February 4, 2016。
2.METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR INSTANT MESSAGING AND GAMING，專利公開號：US20160361659A1，公開日期：December 15, 2016。
3.ONLINE LEARNING SYSTEM, SKILL EVALUATION METHOD THEREOF, AND STORAGE MEDIA STORING THE METHOD，專利公開號：US20160086502A1，公開日期：March 24, 2016。
4.INTERACTIVE IMAGE DISPLAY METHOD AND INTERACTIVE DEVICE，專利公開號：US20140228120A1，公開日期：August 14, 2014。
5.LEARNING ESTIMATION METHOD AND COMPUTER SYSTEM THEREOF專利公開號：US20150093728A1，公開日期：April 2, 2015。