Will the Alice Corp decision breathe new life into the Jepson claim format?

Meet George Jepson!

In Europe, a patent applicant is affirmatively required to distinguish their claimed invention from the prior art in their application. European claims often used the "...characterized in that..." transitional phrase, where everything in the claim preamble that precedes that phrase is conceded prior art.  In U.S. practice, a similar effect is produced where the claim uses the "...wherein the improvement comprises..." transitional phrase.  This is referred to as a "Jepson" claim, from the 1917 Ex parte Jepson case that endorsed it.

Like most patent attorneys, I've avoided using the "Jepson" claim format, in an effort to avoid conceding that anything is prior art.  It's the way I was trained.

However, I'm reconsidering my reluctance in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Alice Corp, and the USPTO's preliminary guidelines, which were issued last Wednesday (see post below).

Here's the important bit:  once an examiner decides that a claim includes an abstract idea, they are to determine "whether any element, or combination of elements, in the claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself."

Limitations referenced in Alice Corp. that may be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with an abstract idea  include, as non-limiting or non-exclusive examples:

• Improvements to another technology or technical field;
• Improvements to the functioning of the computer itself;
• Meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.

 So let's say my invention is an algorithm for use in some kind of technical process, and the use of the algorithm improves that process.  If I draft the claim as a Jepson, claim, I'm steering the examiner right down the path outlined in the first bullet point.  Yes, I've conceded that the process itself is in the prior art, but since I wasn't claiming the old process, no harm done.

Right?