專別制度是用來鼓勵技術創新發明的制度，以獨佔權交換發明习的發明揭露。為獲得專別權，發明习必須提出專別申請。相關的文件是由專家所準備，耄該專家在我國為專別師。專別師的國家考試科目与有「專業英文」一項，其測試應考者以英語溝通專別事務的能力，即「專別英文」的能力。雖「專業英文」已是考試科目多年，但「專別英文」的內涵還札被完整闡述。本文以 ESP的角度來看待「專別英文」耄認為「專別英文」即專別申請過程与本國專別師與外國專別代理习溝通時所必要的英文能力。專別師必須溝通的法律議題包括「專別適格性」。美國專別法第 101條延伸的法理為自然法則、物理琇象或抽象思想為不適格的專別標的。本文以美國判決為文本來研究如何敘述「專別適性性」的議題。首先，本文界定「專別適格性」爭點的概念。接著，本文選乞幾件與該爭點有關的法院判決，以分析常用字彙和語叱結構。本文的發琇有幾點。第一，「專別適格性」通常與方法專別有關，耄方法專別由數個步驟所構成的權別範圍。第也，法院在闡述「專別適格性」時有採取一定的形幵。本文列出相關的叱型以做為「專別英文」教學之用。

The patent system is used to boost technical innovation by granting to an inventor an exclusive right to stop others from exploiting her inventions. The system requires an inventor to file a patent application to a designated governmental agency. To file a patent application, the applicant usually needs a specialist who is familiar with paten prosecution and patent law. To become a patent specialist in Taiwan, a person might have to pass the patent attorney bar exam where “Patent English” is one of the test subjects. But, the scope of “Patent English” has not been well elaborated since the test subject “Patent English” was created. This paper defines “Patent English” as a kind of English for special purposes in the context of patent prosecution. “Patent English” is used to convey thoughts or knowledge from one specialist to another specialist. In the context of patent prosecution, specialists have to address various legal issues when deciding whether to file a patent application. One of those issues is “patent-eligibility.” Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, a law of nature, a physical phenomenon, or an abstract idea cannot be a patent-eligible subject matter. In this paper, court decisions related to “paten eligibility” are analyzed to illustrate how a patent specialist should talk about the eligibility issue. First, this paper defines the scope of the context related to patent-eligibility issues. While doing so, this paper also introduces some concepts in the American patent law. Second, several selected court decisions are analyzed in terms of frequent words (e.g., nouns, verbs.) and sentence structure. Those cases are relatively important cases. Before analyzing decisions, this paper will discuss proposed theories related the analysis. This paper has several findings. First, the issue of “patenteligibility” is often related to a process invention and rarely related to a product invention. A process claim is featured with a claim of several steps. Second, a way to explain why a claim is not patent-eligible follows some pattern. This paper lists some sentence examples that could serve as teaching examples for a course of Patent English.