<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?><?xml-stylesheet href="http://www.blogger.com/styles/atom.css" type="text/css"?><feed xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom' xmlns:openSearch='http://a9.com/-/spec/opensearchrss/1.0/' xmlns:georss='http://www.georss.org/georss' xmlns:gd='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005' xmlns:thr='http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0'><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8853516498908876481</id><updated>2011-07-08T08:47:03.497-07:00</updated><category term='patent'/><category term='los angeles patent group'/><category term='supreme court'/><category term='bilski'/><title type='text'>Bilski - Going Forward</title><subtitle type='html'></subtitle><link rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#feed' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://lapatentgroup.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8853516498908876481/posts/default?max-results=100'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://lapatentgroup.blogspot.com/'/><link rel='hub' href='http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/'/><author><name>Arman Katiraei</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/10517488325311531456</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='27' height='32' src='http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_z2mM7jnsjVU/SjrXkWQw-lI/AAAAAAAAAAM/7tPy_-b6DH0/S220/AttorneyPic.JPG'/></author><generator version='7.00' uri='http://www.blogger.com'>Blogger</generator><openSearch:totalResults>2</openSearch:totalResults><openSearch:startIndex>1</openSearch:startIndex><openSearch:itemsPerPage>100</openSearch:itemsPerPage><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8853516498908876481.post-6771814596656766266</id><published>2009-06-22T13:22:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2009-06-22T13:24:37.314-07:00</updated><title type='text'>New Beta USPTO Website</title><content type='html'>The United States Patent and Trademark is looking to update the look and content of its website. A beta version of the new website can be found at &lt;a href="http://beta.uspto.gov/"&gt;beta.upsto.gov&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;div class="blogger-post-footer"&gt;&lt;img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/8853516498908876481-6771814596656766266?l=lapatentgroup.blogspot.com' alt='' /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://lapatentgroup.blogspot.com/feeds/6771814596656766266/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://lapatentgroup.blogspot.com/2009/06/new-beta-uspto-website.html#comment-form' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8853516498908876481/posts/default/6771814596656766266'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8853516498908876481/posts/default/6771814596656766266'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://lapatentgroup.blogspot.com/2009/06/new-beta-uspto-website.html' title='New Beta USPTO Website'/><author><name>Arman Katiraei</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/10517488325311531456</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='27' height='32' src='http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_z2mM7jnsjVU/SjrXkWQw-lI/AAAAAAAAAAM/7tPy_-b6DH0/S220/AttorneyPic.JPG'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8853516498908876481.post-6374036387335058101</id><published>2009-06-18T17:03:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2009-06-18T17:08:46.138-07:00</updated><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='supreme court'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='los angeles patent group'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='bilski'/><category scheme='http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#' term='patent'/><title type='text'>Patent Eligible Subject Matter to the Supreme Court</title><content type='html'>&lt;p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"&gt;&lt;span class="apple-style-span"&gt;&lt;span style=" line-height:115%;Verdana&amp;quot;,&amp;quot;sans-serif&amp;quot;;font-family:&amp;quot;;"&gt;&lt;span class="Apple-style-span"  style="color:#FFFFFF;"&gt;&lt;span class="Apple-style-span"  style="font-size:small;"&gt;Back in October 2008, the Federal Circuit issued the In Re Bilski decision. The goal and purpose seemed clear, clarify the otherwise murky waters of patentable subject matter as provided by 35 USC 101. In the eyes of many, the decision did less to clear the waters than to muddy them up more. This decision approached and called into question the issue of the validity of business method patent. The court addressed several tests previously used to determine section 101 patentable subject matter, ultimately concluding that a physical transformation or specific purpose machine was required. This decision led many patent practitioners to change how they went about prosecuting and drafting patent applications. One area of interest was how this decision effects software patents as these applications fall into a gray area between business method and statutory processes. &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"&gt;&lt;span class="apple-style-span"&gt;&lt;span style=" line-height:115%;Verdana&amp;quot;,&amp;quot;sans-serif&amp;quot;;font-family:&amp;quot;;"&gt;&lt;span class="Apple-style-span"  style="color:#FFFFFF;"&gt;&lt;span class="Apple-style-span"  style="font-size:small;"&gt;On June 3, 2009, the US Supreme Court agreed to review the decision. This decision by the Supreme Court to review this case illustrates how important these issues are. The eventual ruling by the Supreme Court could greatly narrow the scope of patent eligible subject matter or expand the scope of patent eligible subject matter. In any event, patent practitioners hope that the ruling will at least provide clear and unambiguous guidelines by which the determination of patent eligible subject matter can be made. The last couple of rulings by the Supreme Court have tended to sway more towards the side of narrowing patent rights. &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"&gt;&lt;span class="apple-style-span"&gt;&lt;span style=" line-height:115%;Verdana&amp;quot;,&amp;quot;sans-serif&amp;quot;;font-family:&amp;quot;;"&gt;&lt;span class="Apple-style-span"  style="color:#FFFFFF;"&gt;&lt;span class="Apple-style-span"  style="font-size:small;"&gt;Many feel that patent reform is greatly needed and this upcoming decision may be the first step. Congress may respond with legislation of its own. One likely outcome is that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will issue modified examination guidelines to embody the Supreme Court's rulings. A favorable ruling from the Supreme Court may also reinvigorate the USPTO's push towards issuing new patent rules. These rules have been stuck in limbo/appeal ever since a Virginia court granted GlaxoSmithKline's request for a permanent injunction of the new rules on October 31, 2007. Updates will be posted on &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.lapatentgroup.com"&gt;&lt;span class="Apple-style-span"  style="color:#FFFFFF;"&gt;&lt;span class="Apple-style-span"  style="font-size:small;"&gt;Los Angeles Patent Group&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;span class="Apple-style-span"  style="color:#FFFFFF;"&gt;&lt;span class="Apple-style-span"  style="font-size:small;"&gt; website.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div class="blogger-post-footer"&gt;&lt;img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/8853516498908876481-6374036387335058101?l=lapatentgroup.blogspot.com' alt='' /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://lapatentgroup.blogspot.com/feeds/6374036387335058101/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://lapatentgroup.blogspot.com/2009/06/patent-eligible-subject-matter-to.html#comment-form' title='1 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8853516498908876481/posts/default/6374036387335058101'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8853516498908876481/posts/default/6374036387335058101'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://lapatentgroup.blogspot.com/2009/06/patent-eligible-subject-matter-to.html' title='Patent Eligible Subject Matter to the Supreme Court'/><author><name>Arman Katiraei</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/10517488325311531456</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='27' height='32' src='http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_z2mM7jnsjVU/SjrXkWQw-lI/AAAAAAAAAAM/7tPy_-b6DH0/S220/AttorneyPic.JPG'/></author><thr:total>1</thr:total></entry></feed>
