ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!
Difference between revisions of "USPTO 2010 consultation"
('''We're asking for you help''') |
('''ESP is asking for your help''') |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{navbox}} | {{navbox}} | ||
| − | The [[USPTO]] is accepting comments until 27 September 2010 on their proposed examiner guidelines for interpreting the [[US Supreme Court|Supreme Court]]'s recent [[Bilski: analysis of Supreme Court decision|Bilski decision]]. ''' | + | The [[USPTO]] is accepting comments until 27 September 2010 on their proposed examiner guidelines for interpreting the [[US Supreme Court|Supreme Court]]'s recent [[Bilski: analysis of Supreme Court decision|Bilski decision]]. '''[[ESP]] is asking for your help'''<ref>http://campaigns.fsf.org/pipermail/esp-action-alert/2010-August/000023.html</ref> in analysing these texts and brainstorming on what points to highlight when ESP sends the USPTO its comment. |
The main documents are: | The main documents are: | ||
| Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
* [http://patentlawcenter.pli.edu/2010/08/06/uspto-interim-bilski-guidelines-david-luettgen-of-foley-lardner-weighs-in/ USPTO Interim Bilski Guidelines: David Luettgen of Foley & Lardner Weighs In], 6 Aug 2010 | * [http://patentlawcenter.pli.edu/2010/08/06/uspto-interim-bilski-guidelines-david-luettgen-of-foley-lardner-weighs-in/ USPTO Interim Bilski Guidelines: David Luettgen of Foley & Lardner Weighs In], 6 Aug 2010 | ||
* [http://patentablydefined.com/2010/07/28/the-usptos-interim-guidance-for-determining-subject-matter-eligibility-for-process-claims/ The USPTO’s Interim Guidance For Determining Subject Matter Eligibility For Process Claims], 28 July 2010, PatentablyDefined | * [http://patentablydefined.com/2010/07/28/the-usptos-interim-guidance-for-determining-subject-matter-eligibility-for-process-claims/ The USPTO’s Interim Guidance For Determining Subject Matter Eligibility For Process Claims], 28 July 2010, PatentablyDefined | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==References== | ||
| + | {{reflist}} | ||
{{footer}} | {{footer}} | ||
Revision as of 13:45, 25 August 2010
The USPTO is accepting comments until 27 September 2010 on their proposed examiner guidelines for interpreting the Supreme Court's recent Bilski decision. ESP is asking for your help[1] in analysing these texts and brainstorming on what points to highlight when ESP sends the USPTO its comment.
The main documents are:
- USPTO interim guidelines request for comment (news.swpat.org text version)
- The original can be found at 2010-18424.pdf
- USPTO Method Eligibility Quick Reference Sheet (news.swpat.org text version)
- The original can be found at Pages 3 and 4 of bilski_guidance_27jul2010.pdf
- There's also a USPTO memo which contains an informative cover page plus the two above documents
- The USPTO's press release
Contents
Analysis of the interim guideline RFC
- Add your observations here regarding this text: http://news.swpat.org/2010/08/uspto-request-comment/
Analysis of the Quick Reference Sheet
- Add your observations here regarding this text: http://news.swpat.org/2010/08/uspto-ref-sheet/
Arguments worth using
- Ideas can be found at Why abolish software patents? The USPTO will want to focus on legal aspects and interpretations. To make "common good" arguments, we'd have to show clearly how the USPTO is obliged to listen to that type of argument.
Related pages on ESP Wiki
- USPTO
- Patentability in the USA after Bilski
- Bilski: analysis of Supreme Court decision
- Consultations from patent offices, governments, and courts
External links
(Note: the main official documents are linked in the first paragraph of this article.)
- USPTO Asks for Comments on New Interim Guidance on Bilski, on Groklaw, 29 July 2010
- USPTO Interim Bilski Guidelines: David Luettgen of Foley & Lardner Weighs In, 6 Aug 2010
- The USPTO’s Interim Guidance For Determining Subject Matter Eligibility For Process Claims, 28 July 2010, PatentablyDefined
References
