ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!
Difference between revisions of "USPTO 2010 consultation"
m (Reverted edits by 184.60.22.12 (talk) to last revision by Ciaran) |
(==What we should argue for== The USPTO says that, compared to the USPTO's previous guidelines, the Supreme Court's decision only affects a few rare cases, sometimes broadening patentability, sometime) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
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 [[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 | + | ==The main documents== |
| + | |||
* '''[http://news.swpat.org/2010/08/uspto-request-comment/ USPTO interim guidelines request for comment (news.swpat.org text version)]''' | * '''[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] | ** The original can be found at [http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-18424.pdf 2010-18424.pdf] | ||
| Line 9: | Line 10: | ||
* 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 | * 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] | * [http://www.uspto.gov/news/pr/2010/10_35.jsp The USPTO's press release] | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==How to make a submission== | ||
| + | |||
| + | You can make a submission by post or email, but the USPTO says they prefer email. The address is: Bilski_Guidance@uspto.gov | ||
| + | |||
| + | Submissions can be made up to and including Monday the 27<sup>th</sup>, 2010. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==What we should argue for== | ||
| + | |||
| + | The USPTO says that, compared to the USPTO's previous guidelines, the Supreme Court's decision only affects a few rare cases, sometimes broadening patentability, sometimes narrowing it. We argue that: | ||
| + | |||
| + | * It affects many cases, not just a rare few | ||
| + | * The effects are pretty much always to narrow patentability | ||
| + | * The court's decision shows that the USPTO's previous guidelines were already granting too many software patents | ||
==Analysis of the interim guideline RFC== | ==Analysis of the interim guideline RFC== | ||
Revision as of 10:24, 24 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.
Contents
The main documents
- 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
How to make a submission
You can make a submission by post or email, but the USPTO says they prefer email. The address is: Bilski_Guidance@uspto.gov
Submissions can be made up to and including Monday the 27th, 2010.
What we should argue for
The USPTO says that, compared to the USPTO's previous guidelines, the Supreme Court's decision only affects a few rare cases, sometimes broadening patentability, sometimes narrowing it. We argue that:
- It affects many cases, not just a rare few
- The effects are pretty much always to narrow patentability
- The court's decision shows that the USPTO's previous guidelines were already granting too many software patents
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
