I'd have thought it is probably covered by 'process', now what I see as the problem in many software patents is that they sometimes treat software as a componen

I'd have thought it is probably covered by 'process', now what I see as the problem in many software patents is that they sometimes treat software as a component in a process, leading to overly broad claims that effectively cover any attempt to solve something in software rather than drilling down into the mechanics of a particular solution. Of course, if you did force specifics, then software patents would be pretty toothless as you can always find another process that ends up with the same result. However, if the patent office and courts had decided to take that approach, they wouldn't have had such a valuable income stream to play with, and I suspect they value that over consistency of approach.