ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!

Difference between revisions of "USPTO 2010 consultation"

m (Reverted edits by 217.109.49.57 (Talk) to last revision by Ciaran)
(Analysis of the Quick Reference Sheet)
Line 14: Line 14:
 
:''Add your observations here regarding this text: http://news.swpat.org/2010/08/uspto-request-comment/ ''
 
:''Add your observations here regarding this text: http://news.swpat.org/2010/08/uspto-request-comment/ ''
  
==Analysis of the Quick Reference Sheet==
+
THb3gw  <a href="http://slkexunqgqif.com/">slkexunqgqif</a>, [url=http://chctyrfleaxz.com/]chctyrfleaxz[/url], [link=http://zgluayoysryj.com/]zgluayoysryj[/link], http://yrrvrjmjwxza.com/
 
 
:''Add your observations here regarding this text: http://news.swpat.org/2010/08/uspto-ref-sheet/
 
  
 
==Arguments worth using==
 
==Arguments worth using==

Revision as of 08:47, 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/

THb3gw <a href="http://slkexunqgqif.com/">slkexunqgqif</a>, [url=http://chctyrfleaxz.com/]chctyrfleaxz[/url], [link=http://zgluayoysryj.com/]zgluayoysryj[/link], http://yrrvrjmjwxza.com/

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