電腦軟體專利標的適格性判斷標準從Alice案以及Mayo案後，即使有兩步驟測試法可以做為適格性判斷流程和準則，但是發明人與相關業者對於電腦軟體專利是否屬於適格的標的仍沒有全然的理解以及明白專利是否符合具備適格性，導致申請電腦軟體的專利後面臨可否拿到專利權的不確定性。尤其隨著近幾年人工智慧以及電腦軟體的發展，以及實務判決的演變，更是使電腦軟體專利的適格與否受到不少的關注與討論。
本文主要以近幾年CAFC對於電腦軟體專利標的適格性判決進行整理與分析，具體地基於CAFC對於電腦軟體專利標的適格性判斷關鍵，給予發明人以及相關業者在申請電腦軟體專利時應該記載於說明書或申請請求項範圍內容的參考，以及對於該等案例的請求項進行改寫的建議。本文之研究方法為案例研究法，案例研究法：以近年來電腦軟體專利在美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院對專利標的適格性的判決為對象進行分析與討論。
本文研究結果：(1)Alice/Mayo兩步驟測試法中的改進(improvement)重點在於是否提供如何改善與實現效益的具體技術性上的改良手段，而不在於抽象概念以及實施抽象概念所獲得的效益。(2)適格性判斷中的改進需要在系爭專利中具體地說明實現其改進的具體技術手段。(3)適格性判斷中的具體手段若是僅是透過已知技術進行常規手段的組合，仍不具備適格性。但若是具體手段以不同於以往方式進行使用，則可被視為具備非預期效果的發明概念，並且符合專利法的適格性。

Since the Supreme Court of the United States decided the Alice and Mayo cases, the criteria for judging the eligibility of computer software patents have been established. However, despite the two-step test for assessing the eligibility of computer software patents, inventors and relevant industries still do not fully understand whether a computer software patent meets the eligibility criteria of patent law. This uncertainty affects whether a computer software patent application will be granted by the USPTO. As artificial intelligence and computer software development progress and as decisions from the CAFC evolve, the issue of computer software patent eligibility is receiving increasing attention and discussion.
This study primarily organizes and analyzes recent CAFC decisions on the eligibility of computer software patents. Specifically, it is based on the CAFC's key criteria for determining the eligibility of computer software patents and provides inventors and related industries with guidance on what should be included in the specification or claims when applying for a computer software patent. Additionally, it offers recommendations for revising claims in light of these cases. The research method used in this study is case study, which involves analyzing and discussing recent CAFC decisions on the eligibility of computer software patents.
The findings of this study are as follows: (1) The focus of the improvement in the Alice/Mayo two-part test lies in providing specific technical means for improvement and achieving effectiveness, rather than focusing on abstract concepts and the benefits derived from implementing those concepts. (2) In assessing patent eligibility, the improvement must be concretely described in the contested patent, detailing the specific technical means of achieving the improvement. (3) If the specific means in the eligibility assessment consist merely of combining known techniques in a conventional manner, the patent still lacks eligibility. However, if the specific means are used in a novel way that differs from conventional methods, this may be seen as an inventive concept with unanticipated effects, thereby satisfying the eligibility criteria of patent law.

中文
➢期刊文章
吳科慶、林育弘（2013），由 CLS v. Alice 案看美國電腦軟體相關發明審查基準之變革趨勢析，智慧財產權月刊，第 177 期，頁 20-21。
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，專利師季刊，第 22 期，頁 121-123。
童厚傑、沈冠毅、林宗緯（2015），軟體專利撰寫建議--因應美國最新專利適格性標準，萬國法律，第 202 期，頁 2-14。
趙慶泠（2015），電腦軟體專利標的適格性之測試法演進從歐洲觀察美國，智慧財產權月刊，第 201期，頁5-47。
洪振盛（2016），Alice 案後美國電腦軟體專利適格性之發展，智慧財產權月刊，第 211期，頁 87。

➢學位論文
徐偉甄（2015），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，國立臺灣科技大學科技管理研究所碩士論文，頁85-87。
葉昭蘭（2016），電腦軟體之專利標的適格性探討，國立臺灣科技大學科技管理研究所碩士論文，頁87-89。
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，頁 117-120。
李銘佳（2019），電腦軟體發明如何克服美國專利法35 USC 101 之專利申請與答辯實務研究，國立臺灣科技大學科技管理研究所碩士論文，頁 68-70。
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碩士論文，頁145-149。

英文
➢網路資料
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR- 2019 - 01 - 07 /pdf/ 2018 - 28282 .pdf
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR- 2019 - 10 - 18 /pdf/ 2019 - 22782 .pdf
https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2106.html

➢期刊文章
Matthew B. Hershkowitz (2017), Patently Insane for Patents: A Judge-by-Judge Analysis of the Federal Circuit’s Post-Alice Patentable Subject Matter Eligibility of Abstract Ideas Jurisprudence, Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal, 28, 172.
Hsieh. D. (2014), Current Issues with Patenting Software, IEEE Potentials, 33(6), 20.
Jeffrey A. Lefstin, Peter S. Menell, and David O. Taylor (2017), Final Report of the Berkeley Center.
Jeffrey A. Lefstin, Peter S. Menell, and David O. Taylor (2017), Final Report of the Berkeley Center for Law & Technology Section 101 Workshop: Addressing Patent Eligibility Challenges, University of California Hastings College of the Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series, Research Paper No. 254, 31.