ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!

Difference between revisions of "USPTO 2010 consultation"

(NCbRCHqsHrQNdgv)
m (Reverted edits by 217.109.49.57 (Talk) to last revision by Ciaran)
Line 1: Line 1:
hJNssg <a href="http://otfjfludgyuv.com/">otfjfludgyuv</a>, [url=http://cbkvghwhfhcs.com/]cbkvghwhfhcs[/url], [link=http://cktsuvhdffdk.com/]cktsuvhdffdk[/link], http://arrijgllbghx.com/
+
{{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]]. '''[[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:
 +
* '''[http://news.swpat.org/2010/08/uspto-request-comment/ USPTO interim guidelines request for comment (news.swpat.org text version)]'''
 +
** The original can be found at [http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-18424.pdf 2010-18424.pdf]
 +
* '''[http://news.swpat.org/2010/08/uspto-ref-sheet/ USPTO Method Eligibility Quick Reference Sheet (news.swpat.org text version)]'''
 +
** The original can be found at [http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/exam/bilski_guidance_27jul2010.pdf Pages 3 and 4 of bilski_guidance_27jul2010.pdf]
 +
* There's also a [http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/exam/bilski_guidance_27jul2010.pdf USPTO memo] which contains an informative cover page plus the two above documents
 +
* [http://www.uspto.gov/news/pr/2010/10_35.jsp The USPTO's press release]
 +
 
 +
==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 {{SITENAME}}==
 +
 
 +
* [[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.)
 +
 
 +
* [http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2010072913012223 USPTO Asks for Comments on New Interim Guidance on Bilski], on [[Groklaw]], 29 July 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
 +
 
 +
==References==
 +
{{reflist}}
 +
 
 +
 
 +
{{footer}}

Revision as of 07:18, 3 September 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:

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

External links

(Note: the main official documents are linked in the first paragraph of this article.)

References