No. The idea-expression dichotomy is a common myth about copyright law, right up there with "if I already own the physical cartridge, downloading this game ROM is OK".
The ONLY things that matter when determining whether copyright was infringed are "access" and "substantial similarity". The first refers to whether the alleged infringer did, or had a reasonable opportunity to, view the copyrighted work. The second is more vague and open-ended. But if these two, alone, can be established in court, then absent a fair use or other defense (for example, all of the ways in which your work is "substantially similar" to the infringed work are public domain), you are infringing. Period. End of story.
The Tetris Company, for example, owns the idea of falling-tetromino puzzle video games. If you develop and release such a game, they will sue you and they will win. They have won in the past and they can retain Boies-tier lawyers to litigate a small crater where you once stood if need be. In fact, the ruling in the Tetris vs. Xio case means that look-and-feel copyrights, thought dead after Apple v. Microsoft and Lotus v. Borland, are now back on the table.
It's not like this is even terribly new. Atari, license holders to Pac-Man on game consoles at the time, sued Philips over the release of K.C. Munchkin! on their rival console, the Magnavox Odyssey 2. Munchkin didn't look like Pac-Man. The monsters didn't look like the ghosts from Pac-Man. The mazes and some of the game mechanics were significantly different. Yet, the judge ruled that because it featured an "eater" who ate dots and avoided enemies in a maze, and sometimes had the opportunity to eat the enemies, K.C. Munchkin! infringed on the copyrights to Pac-Man. The ideas used in Pac-Man were novel enough to be eligible for copyright protection.