◆(”directed to an abstract idea”における”directed to”の意味合い)
The “directed to” inquiry, therefore, cannot simply ask whether the claims involve a patent-ineligible concept, because essentially every routinely patent-eligible claim involving physical products and actions involves a law of nature and/or natural phenomenon-after all, they take place in the physical world.

We do not read Alice to broadly hold that all improvements in computer-related technology are inherently abstract and, therefore, must be considered at step two.

Indeed, some improvements in computer-related technology when appropriately claimed are undoubtedly not abstract, such as a chip architecture, an LED display, and the like.

…we find it relevant to ask whether the claims are directed to an improvement to computer functionality versus being directed to an abstract idea, even at the first step of the Alice analysis.

…the district court oversimplified the self-referential component of the claims and downplayed the invention’s benefits.

…we are not persuaded that the invention’s ability to run on a general-purpose computer dooms the claims.

…the improvement is not defined by reference to “physical” components does not doom the claims.

…software that, by their very nature, may not be defined by particular physical features but rather by logical structures and processes. We do not see in Bilski or Alice, or our cases, an exclusion to patenting this large field of technological progress.