ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!

Difference between revisions of "USPTO 2010 consultation"

(Arguments worth using: typo)
 
(30 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown)
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]].  '''Your help is sought''' in analysing these texts and brainstorming on what points to highlight when ESP sends the USPTO its comment.
+
:''(This consultation is closed.  ESP's submission is [http://news.swpat.org/2010/09/esp-to-uspto/ online].)''
 +
 
 +
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 are:
 
 
* '''[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 12:
 
* 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
 +
** The district court rulings that threw patents out based on the CAFC's Bilski ruling might give insight on this
  
 
==Analysis of the interim guideline RFC==
 
==Analysis of the interim guideline RFC==
Line 35: Line 53:
 
* [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
 +
* [http://news.swpat.org/2010/09/dan-ravichers-bilski-rundown/ Bilski Rundown (transcript)], 29 June 2010, [[Dan Ravicher]]
 +
* [http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=1742 KSR, patent obviousness and USPTO practice], 29 Sep 2010, '''ipeg'''
 +
 +
===Submissions===
 +
* [http://news.swpat.org/2010/09/esp-to-uspto/ ESP responds to USPTO consultation], 27 Sep 2010, '''End Software Patents'''
 +
* [http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2010092621054289 Physical Aspects of Mathematics (An Open Response to the USPTO)], 27 Sep 2010, '''PolR''', explaining how [[software is math]]
 +
* [http://press.redhat.com/2010/09/28/red-hat-responds-to-u-s-patent-and-trademark-office-request-for-guidance-on-bilski/ Red Hat Responds to U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Request for Guidance on Bilski], '''[[Red Hat]]'''
 +
* [http://www.fsf.org/news/uspto-response Over 450 letters sent to the USPTO proposing guidelines to end software patents], '''[[FSF]]'''
 +
 +
==References==
 +
{{reflist}}
  
  
 
{{footer}}
 
{{footer}}

Latest revision as of 08:37, 17 October 2012

(This consultation is closed. ESP's submission is online.)

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

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
    • The district court rulings that threw patents out based on the CAFC's Bilski ruling might give insight on this

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.)

Submissions

References