// API callback
related_results_labels({"version":"1.0","encoding":"UTF-8","feed":{"xmlns":"http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom","xmlns$openSearch":"http://a9.com/-/spec/opensearchrss/1.0/","xmlns$blogger":"http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008","xmlns$georss":"http://www.georss.org/georss","xmlns$gd":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005","xmlns$thr":"http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0","id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851300"},"updated":{"$t":"2024-11-05T21:01:41.794-06:00"},"category":[{"term":"USPTO"},{"term":"patent litigation"},{"term":"CAFC"},{"term":"patent reform"},{"term":"patent reform act of 2007"},{"term":"BPAI"},{"term":"continuation rule changes"},{"term":"obviousness"},{"term":"patentable subject matter; 35 USC 101"},{"term":"USPTO; continuation rule changes"},{"term":"patentable subject matter"},{"term":"inequitable conduct"},{"term":"KSR v. Teleflex"},{"term":"Bilski"},{"term":"KSR"},{"term":"claim construction"},{"term":"software patents"},{"term":"willful infringement"},{"term":"patent quality"},{"term":"EPO"},{"term":"FTC"},{"term":"Patent Refom Act"},{"term":"USPTO; patentable subject matter; 35 USC 101"},{"term":"double patenting"},{"term":"indefiniteness"},{"term":"patent licensing"},{"term":"innovation"},{"term":"inter partes reexamination; USPTO"},{"term":"sanctions"},{"term":"2007 patent reform"},{"term":"CAFC statistics"},{"term":"E.D. Texas"},{"term":"Ebay"},{"term":"Intellectual Ventures"},{"term":"Microsoft"},{"term":"Patent Troll Tracker"},{"term":"S.1145"},{"term":"WIPO"},{"term":"declaratory judgment"},{"term":"patent litigation; inequitable conduct"},{"term":"patent troll"},{"term":"35 USC 101"},{"term":"China"},{"term":"IDS Rule Changes"},{"term":"Leahy"},{"term":"Medimmune"},{"term":"Michel"},{"term":"PTO rule changes"},{"term":"Quanta"},{"term":"S. 1145"},{"term":"USPTO fees"},{"term":"divided infringement; patent litigation"},{"term":"doctrine of equivalents"},{"term":"end software patents"},{"term":"inventorship"},{"term":"joint infringement"},{"term":"patent damages"},{"term":"patent exhaustion"},{"term":"patent infringement"},{"term":"patent litigation; patent damages"},{"term":"patent litigation; patentable subject matter"},{"term":"patent litigation; willful infringement"},{"term":"patent policy"},{"term":"patent prosecution"},{"term":"patent searching"},{"term":"patent standardization"},{"term":"permanent injunction"},{"term":"prosecution history estoppel"},{"term":"reexamination"},{"term":"tafas"},{"term":"unintentional abandonment"},{"term":"110th Congress"},{"term":"35 USC 112"},{"term":"Alcatel"},{"term":"Berman"},{"term":"Congress"},{"term":"Dudas"},{"term":"Ex Parte Nehls USPTO"},{"term":"IEEE; patent portfolio"},{"term":"ITC"},{"term":"In Re Seagate"},{"term":"Infringement"},{"term":"LES"},{"term":"NPE"},{"term":"Nujten"},{"term":"OMB"},{"term":"Ocean Tomo"},{"term":"PCT"},{"term":"Patent Cafe"},{"term":"Rambus"},{"term":"SCOTUS"},{"term":"Supreme Court"},{"term":"USPTO; Appeal Brief Rule Changes"},{"term":"USPTO; BPAI"},{"term":"WIPO patent report 2008"},{"term":"antitrust"},{"term":"certificate of correction"},{"term":"district court delaware"},{"term":"eBay v. MercExchange; permanent injunction"},{"term":"enablement"},{"term":"ex parte appeal rule changes"},{"term":"ex parte reexamination"},{"term":"examination support document"},{"term":"false patent marking"},{"term":"glaxo litigation"},{"term":"inherency"},{"term":"injunction"},{"term":"inter partes reexamination"},{"term":"lobbying"},{"term":"motion to stay"},{"term":"niro"},{"term":"patent litigation financing"},{"term":"patent litigation;"},{"term":"patent litigation; NPE; trolls"},{"term":"patent litigation; Seagate"},{"term":"patent litigation; damages"},{"term":"patent litigation; indefiniteness"},{"term":"patent pools"},{"term":"patent statistics"},{"term":"patent valuation"},{"term":"patents"},{"term":"priority"},{"term":"tax patents"},{"term":"top patent filers"},{"term":"translogic"},{"term":"venue"},{"term":"written description"},{"term":"'069 Patent"},{"term":"200 letter"},{"term":"5\/25"},{"term":"AIPLA Model Patent Jury Instructions"},{"term":"AQS"},{"term":"ATI"},{"term":"ATT"},{"term":"AUTM annual report; technology transfer"},{"term":"Acumed"},{"term":"Adam Jaffe"},{"term":"Ampex"},{"term":"Apotex"},{"term":"Appeal"},{"term":"Aristocrat"},{"term":"AvaMed"},{"term":"BIO"},{"term":"BPAI. text search"},{"term":"BPAI; USPTO"},{"term":"BPAI; USPTO; Appeal Brief Rule Changes"},{"term":"BPMC"},{"term":"Becerra"},{"term":"Berman letter"},{"term":"Biomedino"},{"term":"BlueJ"},{"term":"CAFC; incorporation by reference"},{"term":"CAFC; means-plus-function; infringement"},{"term":"CAFC; safe harbor; Hatch-Waxman"},{"term":"CBT"},{"term":"CHI"},{"term":"CJ Asset Management"},{"term":"CLP"},{"term":"CSIRO"},{"term":"CWU Pilot Program"},{"term":"Cargill"},{"term":"Chicago IP Day"},{"term":"Citizens Against Government Waste"},{"term":"Cominskey"},{"term":"Commerce Department Letter"},{"term":"Common Application Format"},{"term":"Cross"},{"term":"Cybor"},{"term":"DTV patents; patent licensing; patent pools"},{"term":"Daiichi"},{"term":"Daniel Ravicher"},{"term":"Detkin"},{"term":"Dickson"},{"term":"DirecTV"},{"term":"Dystar"},{"term":"EON-Net"},{"term":"EchoStar"},{"term":"Edwards"},{"term":"Elbex Video"},{"term":"Eon"},{"term":"Ex Parte Letts"},{"term":"Federal Circuit"},{"term":"Federal Register"},{"term":"Festo"},{"term":"Finisar"},{"term":"Fisher-Price"},{"term":"Franklin Electric"},{"term":"Fulbright Jaworsky litigation survey; patent litigation"},{"term":"GPH"},{"term":"Genomic Research and Accessibility Act"},{"term":"Google Earth"},{"term":"HR 2365"},{"term":"Halliburton"},{"term":"Hatch"},{"term":"IAM"},{"term":"IP Australia"},{"term":"IP econonomics"},{"term":"IP investing"},{"term":"IP litigation; China"},{"term":"IP valuation"},{"term":"ISO"},{"term":"India"},{"term":"Innovation Alliance"},{"term":"Intellectual Property Prospector"},{"term":"JPO"},{"term":"John Love"},{"term":"Kennedy"},{"term":"Kolling"},{"term":"Korea"},{"term":"Leapfrog"},{"term":"LegalForce"},{"term":"LegalMetric"},{"term":"Lemley"},{"term":"Lemley Sampat"},{"term":"Lichtman"},{"term":"Litigation Survey 2007"},{"term":"Liu Sharon study"},{"term":"Loyola"},{"term":"M. Henry Heines"},{"term":"MDMA"},{"term":"Mark Myers"},{"term":"Marshall Phelps"},{"term":"MassMEDIC"},{"term":"McKesson"},{"term":"McNeil"},{"term":"Medtronic"},{"term":"MercExchange"},{"term":"Micron"},{"term":"Microsoft v. ATT"},{"term":"Monsanto"},{"term":"N-Data"},{"term":"NTP"},{"term":"Netcraft"},{"term":"OIRA"},{"term":"PCT filings 2006"},{"term":"POPA"},{"term":"PTO rumors"},{"term":"PWC Patent Litigation Study"},{"term":"Paice"},{"term":"Patent Advisory Committee"},{"term":"Patent Enforcement Team"},{"term":"Patent Focus Report"},{"term":"Patent Monkey"},{"term":"Patent Pendency"},{"term":"Patent for Business"},{"term":"Peer to Patent"},{"term":"Perrigo"},{"term":"Pharmastem"},{"term":"PowerOasis"},{"term":"Price Waterhouse Cooper"},{"term":"Priority Document Exchange"},{"term":"QPC"},{"term":"RFID"},{"term":"Reid"},{"term":"Representation"},{"term":"Reuning"},{"term":"Rule 8"},{"term":"SBS"},{"term":"SDNY"},{"term":"SRI International"},{"term":"SanDisk"},{"term":"Sarbanes-Oxley"},{"term":"Shabaz Crabb"},{"term":"Sherman Act"},{"term":"Skyline"},{"term":"SparkIP"},{"term":"State Street"},{"term":"Stephen Pinkos"},{"term":"Stryker"},{"term":"Suzanne Michel"},{"term":"Symbian"},{"term":"Syngenta"},{"term":"TGIP"},{"term":"Tech Policy Summit"},{"term":"Teleflex"},{"term":"Texas MP3 Technologies"},{"term":"The Resolution"},{"term":"Toyota"},{"term":"Twombly"},{"term":"UK-IPO"},{"term":"USPTO IDS Rule Changes"},{"term":"USPTO training"},{"term":"USPTO; IDS; Applicant Quality Submissions"},{"term":"USPTO; KSR Guidelines; continuation rule changes"},{"term":"USPTO; Peterlin"},{"term":"USPTO; flat goal of production"},{"term":"USPTO; patent litigation; presumption of validity"},{"term":"USPTO; reexaminations"},{"term":"USPTO; teleworking"},{"term":"Validity"},{"term":"ValueVest"},{"term":"Verizon"},{"term":"Vonage"},{"term":"W.D. Wisconsin"},{"term":"WIPO patent report 2007"},{"term":"WLAN"},{"term":"Walker Process"},{"term":"Waters Technologies"},{"term":"Wi-LAN; patent litigation"},{"term":"Woodlock"},{"term":"Yet2.com"},{"term":"accelerated examination"},{"term":"allison"},{"term":"allowance rates"},{"term":"anticipation"},{"term":"appointments"},{"term":"biotech"},{"term":"blackboard"},{"term":"calim construction"},{"term":"claim contruction"},{"term":"claim differentiation"},{"term":"claim preclusion"},{"term":"clustering"},{"term":"coalition for patent fairness"},{"term":"communit patent review"},{"term":"community review"},{"term":"convoyed sales"},{"term":"cost"},{"term":"declarations"},{"term":"deputy commissioner"},{"term":"desire2learn"},{"term":"district courts"},{"term":"economist"},{"term":"employee survey"},{"term":"equitable estoppel"},{"term":"ethernet"},{"term":"filing fees"},{"term":"final rule"},{"term":"first to file"},{"term":"foreign patent searches"},{"term":"fuel cell patents"},{"term":"gene patents"},{"term":"gsk"},{"term":"hardware"},{"term":"hedge funds"},{"term":"house hearings"},{"term":"indifiniteness"},{"term":"infringment"},{"term":"inter partes reexamination; Cooper Technologies; USPTO"},{"term":"interviews"},{"term":"inventor mobility; patents"},{"term":"kahaulelio-gregory"},{"term":"klemens"},{"term":"kop"},{"term":"kunin"},{"term":"laches"},{"term":"lawsuit"},{"term":"licensing"},{"term":"litigation"},{"term":"mann"},{"term":"media coverage"},{"term":"medical techniques"},{"term":"misconduct"},{"term":"mossinghoff"},{"term":"nanotubes"},{"term":"notice"},{"term":"oaths"},{"term":"offer for sale"},{"term":"open source"},{"term":"opposition"},{"term":"patent auctions"},{"term":"patent bounties"},{"term":"patent busting"},{"term":"patent disclaimer"},{"term":"patent harmonization"},{"term":"patent holdup"},{"term":"patent intelligence"},{"term":"patent intermediaries; Raymond Millen; Ron Laurie"},{"term":"patent litigation; Rule 11 sanctions"},{"term":"patent litigation; SDNY; Rule 11 sanctions"},{"term":"patent litigation; assignment"},{"term":"patent litigation; divided infringement"},{"term":"patent litigation; equitable estoppel"},{"term":"patent litigation; inter partes reexamination"},{"term":"patent litigation; reexamination"},{"term":"patent litigation; reexamination; willful infringement"},{"term":"patent litigaton"},{"term":"patent market"},{"term":"patent ownership"},{"term":"patent tools"},{"term":"pharma"},{"term":"pleadings"},{"term":"preliminary injunctions"},{"term":"presumption of validity"},{"term":"presumptions"},{"term":"prior art"},{"term":"private equity"},{"term":"privilege"},{"term":"product by process claims"},{"term":"prosecution history"},{"term":"rader"},{"term":"reasearch and development"},{"term":"recapture"},{"term":"reexamination; patent litigation"},{"term":"reissue"},{"term":"remand"},{"term":"representative claims"},{"term":"royalties"},{"term":"royalty stacking"},{"term":"sanctions. protective orders"},{"term":"senate"},{"term":"sovereign immunity"},{"term":"standing"},{"term":"statutory subject matter"},{"term":"stndardization groups"},{"term":"supplemental jurisdiction"},{"term":"thomson reuters patent study"},{"term":"top patent holders; USPTO"},{"term":"unextected results"},{"term":"vitiation"},{"term":"vuestar; patent litigation"},{"term":"waiver"},{"term":"webcast"},{"term":"world growth"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"The 271 Patent Blog"},"subtitle":{"type":"html","$t":"By Peter Zura"},"link":[{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#feed","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"https:\/\/271patent.blogspot.com\/feeds\/posts\/default"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"https:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/6851300\/posts\/default\/-\/Bilski?alt=json-in-script\u0026max-results=5"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"https:\/\/271patent.blogspot.com\/search\/label\/Bilski"},{"rel":"hub","href":"http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/"},{"rel":"next","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"https:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/6851300\/posts\/default\/-\/Bilski\/-\/Bilski?alt=json-in-script\u0026start-index=6\u0026max-results=5"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"Two-Seventy-One Patent Blog"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/02481083706071978817"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"generator":{"version":"7.00","uri":"http://www.blogger.com","$t":"Blogger"},"openSearch$totalResults":{"$t":"10"},"openSearch$startIndex":{"$t":"1"},"openSearch$itemsPerPage":{"$t":"5"},"entry":[{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851300.post-8486594850225948049"},"published":{"$t":"2009-11-16T22:02:00.001-06:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2009-11-16T22:07:29.444-06:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Bilski"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"ED Tex: Computerized Business Method Patent Fails Bilski Test Under 35 USC 101"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Ci\u003E\u003Cb\u003EH\u0026amp;R Block Tax Services v. Jackson Hewitt Tax Services Inc\u003C\/b\u003E\u003C\/i\u003E., No. 6:08-cv-37 (E.D. Tex., Nov. 10, 2009)\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nH\u0026amp;R Block sued Jackson Hewitt in February 2008 alleging infringement of patents relating to \"a system and method for distributing payments to individuals and, more particularly, to a system and method for allocating a portion or all of an individual’s payment into a spending vehicle.\"\u0026nbsp; Jackson Hewitt subsequently moved the court to find the patent invalid for claiming ineligible subject matter on summary judgment\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nUnlike \u003Ci\u003EBilski\u003C\/i\u003E, H\u0026amp;R argued that the business method was tied to a machine (i.e., computer) and pointed to specific claims directed to \"a computerized system for distributing spending vehicles.\"\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nSince the court did not issue a claim construction opinion, Magistrate Judge Love accepted plaintiff’s contentions that the patents claim “computerized systems” that are capable of performing certain functions as defined by the claims allegedly functional language. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote\u003EA financial relationship is simply an abstract intellectual concept. Absent the recitation of a computer, the ‘862 patent would certainly claim unpatentable subject matter. See Benson, 409 U.S. at 67 (reiterating “the long standing rule that ‘(a)n idea of itself is not patentable’”). Plaintiff argues the present recitation of a computer imposes meaningful limits on the scope of the claim such that a fundamental principle is not fully preempted. The Court disagrees. The computer component is not a particular, special purpose machine; it is capable of no more than storing and retrieving data memorializing associations. The computer is an insignificant, extra-solution component of the claimed system. Cf. Bilski, 545 F.3d at 961-963 (concluding that data gathering steps are insignificant extra-solution activity). If an extra-solution step is insufficient to render an otherwise unpatentable process claim valid, then by analogy an extra-solution component is insufficient to render an otherwise unpatentable “system” claim valid. \u003Cb\u003EThus, the addition of a generic computer, capable only of storing and retrieving data associating payments with spending vehicles, to the claimed system fails to impose meaningful limits on these claims. Therefore, the Court finds the claims of the ‘862 patent invalid for claiming unpatentable subject matter\u003C\/b\u003E.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv style=\"text-align: center;\"\u003E* * *\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv style=\"text-align: center;\"\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E[T]he Court finds that none of the remaining claims at issue pass the transformation prong of the test. Plaintiff argues that the ‘829 claims transform “tax return data into an anticipated tax refund amount which is transformed into a spending vehicle issued by a third party provider” and that the ‘425 method claims transform “an individual’s income and expense data into an estimated income tax return amount which is transformed into a loan distributed to a tax payer.” PL.’S RESP. at 24. Plaintiff argues the data “represent real world items (e.g., money).” Id. at 25. It argues that income and expense data do not represent hypothetical income and expenses but rather “actual money which has been earned and spent.” Id. The final transformation, it urges, is from data to a loan for a specific amount of money. Id. At all steps in the claimed processes, the manipulated data represent legal obligations and relationships. See Bilski, 545 F.3d at 963. However described, the data and resulting loan represent money. \u003Cb\u003EAlthough tangible in some forms, money is simply a representation of a legal obligation or abstract concept\u003C\/b\u003E. Therefore, the Court finds that the claims of the ‘829 patent and the method claims of the ‘425 patent fail the transformation prong of the machine-or-transformation test.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nRead\/download a copy of the opinion here (\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/sites.google.com\/site\/271patentblog\/Home\/HRBlockvJacksonHewittt.pdf?attredirects=0\"\u003Elink\u003C\/a\u003E)\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nFrom \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/www.docketnavigator.com\/\"\u003EDocket Navigator \u003C\/a\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"https:\/\/271patent.blogspot.com\/feeds\/8486594850225948049\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"https:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment\/fullpage\/post\/6851300\/8486594850225948049?isPopup=true","title":"3 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"https:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/6851300\/posts\/default\/8486594850225948049"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"https:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/6851300\/posts\/default\/8486594850225948049"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"https:\/\/271patent.blogspot.com\/2009\/11\/ed-tex-computerized-business-method.html","title":"ED Tex: Computerized Business Method Patent Fails Bilski Test Under 35 USC 101"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"Two-Seventy-One Patent Blog"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/02481083706071978817"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"3"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851300.post-2722014007846675898"},"published":{"$t":"2009-11-11T16:26:00.002-06:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2009-11-11T16:43:11.792-06:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Bilski"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Bilski Movie Spoof"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"For whatever reason, numerous spoofs have been made using the \"Hitler rant\" scene from \u003Cem\u003EDer Untergang\u003C\/em\u003E (\"Downfall\"), ranging from US elections, the real estate market, ACORN, etc.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nWell, a spoof relating to patent law (and more specifically \u003Cem\u003EBilski\u003C\/em\u003E) has now been made, and it's quite funny, although at times you can't tell if the character playing Hitler is pro-patent or anti-patent . . .\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cobject height=\"344\" width=\"425\"\u003E\u003Cparam name=\"movie\" value=\"http:\/\/www.youtube.com\/v\/NMszkJC6v9M\u0026amp;hl=en\u0026amp;fs=1\u0026amp;\"\u003E\u003C\/param\u003E\u003Cparam name=\"allowFullScreen\" value=\"true\"\u003E\u003C\/param\u003E\u003Cparam name=\"allowscriptaccess\" value=\"always\"\u003E\u003C\/param\u003E\u003Cembed src=\"http:\/\/www.youtube.com\/v\/NMszkJC6v9M\u0026amp;hl=en\u0026amp;fs=1\u0026amp;\" type=\"application\/x-shockwave-flash\" allowscriptaccess=\"always\" allowfullscreen=\"true\" width=\"425\" height=\"344\"\u003E\u003C\/embed\u003E\u003C\/object\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"https:\/\/271patent.blogspot.com\/feeds\/2722014007846675898\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"https:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment\/fullpage\/post\/6851300\/2722014007846675898?isPopup=true","title":"2 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"https:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/6851300\/posts\/default\/2722014007846675898"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"https:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/6851300\/posts\/default\/2722014007846675898"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"https:\/\/271patent.blogspot.com\/2009\/11\/bilski-movie-spoof.html","title":"Bilski Movie Spoof"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"Two-Seventy-One Patent Blog"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/02481083706071978817"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"2"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851300.post-3981746522966103644"},"published":{"$t":"2009-11-09T22:30:00.002-06:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2009-11-09T22:42:25.721-06:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Bilski"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Bilski Oral Argument at the Supreme Court"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cblockquote\u003E\"If you're not confused, you're not paying attention.\"\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp; -- Tom Peters\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nWell, the analysis has started to roll in, and one thing is certain about the Bilski case: almost no one believes that the claims on appeal will be held patentable.\u0026nbsp; Not one Justice defended Bilski's method claim directed to hedging risks in commodities trading.\u0026nbsp; What appeared to bother the court the most was the concept of business methods based entirely on human activity, or, as Bilski's attorney Michael Jakes put it, \"methods of organizing human behavior.\"\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nThe Court didn't care much for these types of patents, and they made this clear - over and over - by citing examples of\u0026nbsp; trivial patents throughout the arguments, almost as a taunt to Bilski's counsel in the hopes that he would eventually stop mid-argument and acknowledge \"you know what, your honor - that's a pretty stupid invention right there; someone would need to have their head examined before filing a patent application on that.\"\u0026nbsp; Some theoretical patents proposed by the Justices:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n- How to resist a corporate takeover (Ginsburg)\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n- How to choose a jury (Ginsburg)\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n- Patent the method of speed dating (Sotomayor)\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n- A \"great, wonderful, really original method of teaching antitrust law [that keeps] 80 percent of the students awake\" (Breyer)\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n- \"I buy low and sell high.\u0026nbsp; That's my patent for maximizing wealth\" (Roberts)\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n-\u0026nbsp; Questioning whether a person at the Bureau of Statistics can compile statistics on life expectancy and get a patent (Kennedy)\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n-\u0026nbsp; \"Let's take training horses. Don't you think that -- that some people, horse whisperers or others, had some, you know, some insights into the best way to train horses? And that should have been patentable on your theory.\" (Scalia)\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nAnd so on.\u0026nbsp; Entertaining?\u0026nbsp; Yes.\u0026nbsp; Helpful?\u0026nbsp; Not really.\u0026nbsp; The Justices were quite frank in telling the counsel that they were having trouble formulating \u003Ci\u003Eany\u003C\/i\u003E kind of concrete test for patentable subject matter:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote\u003EJUSTICE BREYER: [I]n the nineteenth century, they made it one way with respect to machines. Now you're telling us: Make it today in respect to information. And if you ask me as a person how to make that balance in respect to information, if I am honest, I have to tell you: I don't know. And I don't know whether across the board or in this area or that area patent protection will do no harm or more harm than good.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\u003Cblockquote\u003ESo that's the true situation in which I find myself in respect to your argument. And it's in respect to that, I would say: All right, so what do I do?\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\u003Cblockquote\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv style=\"text-align: center;\"\u003E* * *\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nJUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: And so it begs the question, because we go around in a circle: What does \"process\" mean in a patent law that was passed in 1952 that had one set of manufacturing and other items that are technologically tied and this is not? So how do we discern Congress's intent, other than by the use of the word \"process\" in context?\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv style=\"text-align: center;\"\u003E* * *\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nJUSTICE BREYER: Now, [the Federal Circuit has] left much unresolved. One, transformation; how broad or narrow is that? We don't know. Many people's problems will be solved if it's broad on the one hand or narrow in the other.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\u003Cblockquote\u003ETwo, are you automatically patented -- in the patent statute, if you just sort of reduce this to a machine by adding a computer on at the end? They've flagged that as a problem. They haven't answered it. Could there ever be a situation where it doesn't meet this test but still is patentable? We are not sure.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003C\/blockquote\u003EAt this point, the Justices appeared to tacitly accept the Federal Circuit's \"machine-or-transformation\" (MOT) test by default - i.e., unless they hear of something better, the MOT test will have to do for now.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote\u003EJUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Well, isn't the manipulation of electronic signals a substance that is different in kind from just a method of how to go about doing business or a method of how to approach a particular problem?\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\u003Cblockquote\u003EIsn't there -- isn't that what the Federal Circuit was trying to explain, which is that there has to be something more substantive than the mere exchange of information; that it has to involve -- it used the word \"transformation.\" It hasn't defined the outer limits of what it means by that.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n* * *\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nMR. STEWART (USPTO): Well, first of all the only ruling that we're -- backtrack a bit, to say, we oppose,sir, in this case because we recognize that there are difficult problems out there in terms of patentability of software innovations and medical diagnostics.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nJUSTICE KENNEDY: You thought we -- you thought we would mess it up.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nMR. STEWART: I didn't think --\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n(Laughter.)\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nMR. STEWART: We didn't think the Court would mess it up. We thought that this case would provide an unsuitable vehicle for resolving the hard questions because the case doesn't involve computer software or medical diagnostic techniques, and therefore, we thought the Court would arrive at the position that I think, at least some members are feeling that you have arrived at, that you will decide this case, and most of the hard questions remain unresolved. And, frankly, we think that's true.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nJUSTICE GINSBURG: \u003Cb\u003EBut this case could be decided without making any bold steps\u003C\/b\u003E.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nMR. STEWART: Again, I don't -- I don't think it would be a bold step to say that machine-or-transformation is the test. That is, we have gone for --\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nJUSTICE GINSBURG: \u003Cb\u003EBut even the Federal circuit didn't say it was a retest. It said it is for now. We know that things that we haven't yet contemplated may be around the corner, and when they happen, we will deal with them\u003C\/b\u003E.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003C\/blockquote\u003EFor people that still cling to the fantasy that software patents will be banned, you will have to wait for another day.\u0026nbsp; The court appeared to recognize that this case was not about computers and computer software (in the words of Justice Sotomayor: \"no ruling in this case is going to change State Street\"), and the majority of the discussion was directed to human-activity business methods.\u0026nbsp; As such, it is highly unlikely that the Court will rule in any meaningful way against software patents.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nOne interesting discussion worth noting is the following exchange between Scalia and Jakes, where Scalia appears to contradict the Federal Circuit's holding in \u003Ci\u003EIn re Nuijten\u003C\/i\u003E (signal claims are not patentable subject matter):\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote\u003EJUSTICE SCALIA: Sound -- sound is not physical, and electric current is not physical?\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nMR. JAKES: I think electric current is physical.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nJUSTICE SCALIA: Yes, I think so.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nMR. JAKES: Yes.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nJUSTICE SCALIA: Sound is, too.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nMR. JAKES: It can be, but when it's transmitted over a wire, it's not. It's something else. It's an electrical current then.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nJUSTICE SCALIA: Sound is not transmitted over the wires. Sound has been transformed into current, and current is transmitted over the wire and then transformed back at the other end into sound.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nMR. JAKES: Yes, and I would agree --\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nJUSTICE SCALIA: I think it clearly --clearly would have been covered by -- by the test\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nRead\/download a transcript of the oral arguments here (\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.supremecourtus.gov\/oral_arguments\/argument_transcripts\/08-964.pdf\"\u003Elink\u003C\/a\u003E)"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"https:\/\/271patent.blogspot.com\/feeds\/3981746522966103644\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"https:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment\/fullpage\/post\/6851300\/3981746522966103644?isPopup=true","title":"2 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"https:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/6851300\/posts\/default\/3981746522966103644"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"https:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/6851300\/posts\/default\/3981746522966103644"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"https:\/\/271patent.blogspot.com\/2009\/11\/if-youre-not-confused-youre-not-paying.html","title":"Bilski Oral Argument at the Supreme Court"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"Two-Seventy-One Patent Blog"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/02481083706071978817"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"2"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851300.post-2181013958665639216"},"published":{"$t":"2009-11-09T15:32:00.000-06:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2009-11-09T15:32:47.615-06:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Bilski"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"\"On the Scene\" Reports and Blogs from SCOTUS Bilski Arguments"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cstrong\u003EFrom Gene Quinn, \u003Cem\u003EIPWatchdog\u003C\/em\u003E:\u003C\/strong\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote\u003EJustice Ginsberg seemed to me to be the most openly hostile toward business methods, as well as the US patent system in general. She mentioned with a certain incredulous attitude the thought of patenting tax avoidance methods, estate planning, how to resist a corporate takeover and how to select a jury. Ginsberg then several times later kept asking about how other countries handle this type of invention, noting that other systems work with a technology requirement and do not accept these types of processes as patentable. Jakes correctly pointed out that other systems follow that approach, but there is no support in US law for that approach to be followed here.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\u003Cblockquote\u003EJustice Breyer also seemed unfavorable toward business methods being patentable, but seemed to genuinely be trying to figure out where to draw the line, even one time admitting that if he is honest with himself he does not know what the answer is at this point. Breyer did have difficulty with the thought that “anything that helps a businessman succeed would be patentable” if the Supreme Court were to adopt the Bilski proffered approach.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nThe most junior member of the Supreme Court, Justice Sotomayor, seemed openly hostile toward the Federal Circuit decision in this case. At several times throughout the argument she made her opinion clear that she thought the Federal Circuit had gone too far in its decision, a theme that was picked up on and echoed by several of the other Justices. Specifically, Sotomayor asked: “How do we limit it to something that is reasonable?” She also asked later asked Stewart: “Help us with a test that does not go to the extreme that the Federal Circuit did.”\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003C\/blockquote\u003ERead the post in its entirety here (\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.ipwatchdog.com\/2009\/11\/09\/bilski-arguments-complete-at-the-us-supreme-court\/id=7217\/\"\u003Elink\u003C\/a\u003E)\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cstrong\u003EFrom Lyle Denniston, \u003Cem\u003ESCOTUS Blog\u003C\/em\u003E:\u003C\/strong\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote\u003EThe largest question left unanswered when the one-hour argument was over was whether the Court would go forward and issue a major new ruling interpreting patent law, when the practical result here seemed so evident. Lawyers and judges have invested heavy resources in the Bilski case, and it does raise a fundamental question that may well need answering. But, when there may well be no formulation of patent law that would salvage the Bilski-Warsaw creation, why bother?\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv style=\"text-align: center;\"\u003E* * *\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nJustice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., promptly asked whether “this is a good case” to get into the broad area of patentability. Stewart suggested it was, at least for a narrow ruling validating the Federal Circuit’s test, leaving harder questions for down the road. But Justice Sotomayor then suggested a concern that seemed to be shared by at least some of her colleagues, commenting that “I have no idea what the limits of the Federal Circuit rule would be in the medical field or the computer world.” Justice Breyer chimed in that the lower court had left “a lot for the future.”\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cdiv style=\"text-align: center;\"\u003E* * *\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nJustice Breyer also joined the Chief, suggesting that, if all that were needed were to tie a theory to a computer to make it patentable, “all you would need to do would get someone who knows computers asnd he can set up every business application” to make it eligible. Again, Stewart responded by urging the Court to keep its decision narrow, agreeing with a comment by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg that the case could be decided “without making any bold steps.”\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nStill, after this argument, it might be a fairly “bold step” to decide the case at all. Whether the Court is prepared to rule may depend upon the degree to which it accepts the assurances of the Solicitor General that the Federal Circuit would modify its test if it threatened to stifle “emerging technologies.”\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003C\/blockquote\u003ERead the entire post here (\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.scotusblog.com\/wp\/analysis-the-lorenzo-jones-case-emerges\/\"\u003Elink\u003C\/a\u003E)\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cstrong\u003ETony Mauro, \u003Cem\u003EBlog of the Legal Times\u003C\/em\u003E:\u003C\/strong\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cblockquote\u003EThe long-awaited Supreme Court patent law showdown in Bilski v. Kappos is over, and it not looking good for business method patents -- or at least the one at issue in the case. Justices overall seemed hostile to a broad view of patent eligibility that would include intangible business processes.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nJustice Stephen Breyer said that if everything that \"helps a businessman succeed\" is patent-eligible, it would \"stop the wheels of progress\" by granting exclusive rights to innovations that should be available to all. When J. Michael Jakes of Finnegan, Henderson, Farrabow, Garrett \u0026amp; Dunner, arguing in favor of the patent at issue, said one benefit of patenting innovations is public disclosure, Justice Sonia Sotomayor countered that patents in fact \"limit the free flow of information.\" Sotomayor, a onetime intellectual property lawyer in New York, was viewed as a potential pro-patent vote, but her comments suggested skepticism.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\nBut it's not certain that a defeat for Bilski and Warsaw will mean the Court is embracing U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's narrow view that to be eligible for a patent, an invention must be tied to a machine or a physical transformation. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and others voiced some concern about adopting a rigid rule that would fail to anticipate unknown kinds of innovations in the future.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003C\/blockquote\u003ERead the post here (\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/legaltimes.typepad.com\/blt\/2009\/11\/bilski-case-provokes-patent-skepticism-from-justices.html\"\u003Elink\u003C\/a\u003E)\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u0026nbsp; \u003Cbr \/\u003E\n\u0026nbsp;"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"https:\/\/271patent.blogspot.com\/feeds\/2181013958665639216\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"https:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment\/fullpage\/post\/6851300\/2181013958665639216?isPopup=true","title":"0 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"https:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/6851300\/posts\/default\/2181013958665639216"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"https:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/6851300\/posts\/default\/2181013958665639216"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"https:\/\/271patent.blogspot.com\/2009\/11\/on-scene-reports-and-blogs-from-scotus.html","title":"\"On the Scene\" Reports and Blogs from SCOTUS Bilski Arguments"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"Two-Seventy-One Patent Blog"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/02481083706071978817"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"0"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851300.post-6025569795885871825"},"published":{"$t":"2009-02-11T22:07:00.007-06:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2009-02-11T22:49:33.198-06:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Bilski"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"BPAI"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"patentable subject matter; 35 USC 101"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Another Bilski Decision From the BPAI"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cem\u003E\u003Cstrong\u003EEx Parte Nawathe et al\u003C\/strong\u003E\u003C\/em\u003E., Appeal No. 2007-3360, February 9, 2009\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EThe applicants claimed a system and method for representing a normalized eXtensible Markup Language (XML) data structure as fixed sets of tables in a relational database (RDB). The examiner rejected the claims under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EClaim 1 recited\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cblockquote\u003E1. A computerized method comprising:\u003Cbr \/\u003Einputting multiple extensible Markup Language (XML) documents;\u003Cbr \/\u003Ecreating a data representation of said multiple XML documents; and\u003Cbr \/\u003Ereducing redundancy across said multiple XML documents via a fixed set of tables.\u003C\/blockquote\u003EAccording to the BPAI,\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cblockquote\u003E[T]he recited method, while being computerized, is not tied to a particular machine for executing the claimed steps. We find that the computerized recitation purports to a general purpose processor (Fig. 2.), as opposed to a particular computer specifically programmed for executing the steps of the claimed method [271 Note: what's the difference?]. Next, while it can be argued that the creating step transforms the input XML documents into represented data (i.e. a different state), we find that the documents are not an article (i.e. physical entities). Rather, they are mere data that represent such entities. Similarly, while it can be argued that the redundancy reducing step transforms the XML documents into a smaller set of the documents, they are not an article being transformed.\u003C\/blockquote\u003EHowever, a related apparatus claim recited\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cblockquote\u003E25. An apparatus comprising:\u003Cbr \/\u003Emeans for creating a graph based data structure representing multiple standard XML tree structures;\u003Cbr \/\u003Emeans for transforming said graph based data structure to a fixed set of tables; and\u003Cbr \/\u003Emeans for using said fixed set of tables.\u003C\/blockquote\u003EHere, the BPAI found the language rendered statutory subject matter into the claim:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cblockquote\u003EAppellants argue that the recited apparatus refers to the general purpose computer depicted in Figure 2. (App. Br. 33.) Further, Appellants submit that the different means recited in the claim correspond to the different modules in the computer for performing the recited functions. (Id. at 12.) We find that since the claim recites a physical apparatus with physical modules for transforming a data structure into a fixed set of tables, it is not a directed to an abstract idea. Therefore, Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in finding that claim 25 is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, we will not sustain this rejection.\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\u003Cp\u003EApparently, the Board did not see fit to explain why a \"computerized method\" to a \"general purpose computer\" is nonstatutory, while an \"apparatus\" directed to the same general purpose computer is. The implication here is that, if the method claim recited the computer, the claims would be statutory. However, other BPAI precedent (Ex parte Gutta) states that this would not be enough.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003ERead the decision here (\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/des.uspto.gov\/Foia\/ReterivePdf?system=BPAI\u0026amp;flNm=fd20073360-02-09-2009-1\"\u003Elink\u003C\/a\u003E)\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003ERead the application here (\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/appft1.uspto.gov\/netacgi\/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1\u0026amp;Sect2=HITOFF\u0026amp;d=PG01\u0026amp;p=1\u0026amp;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html\u0026amp;r=1\u0026amp;f=G\u0026amp;l=50\u0026amp;s1=%2220030188264%22.PGNR.\u0026amp;OS=DN\/20030188264\u0026amp;RS=DN\/20030188264\"\u003Elink\u003C\/a\u003E)\u003C\/p\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"https:\/\/271patent.blogspot.com\/feeds\/6025569795885871825\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"https:\/\/www.blogger.com\/comment\/fullpage\/post\/6851300\/6025569795885871825?isPopup=true","title":"5 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"https:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/6851300\/posts\/default\/6025569795885871825"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"https:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/6851300\/posts\/default\/6025569795885871825"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"https:\/\/271patent.blogspot.com\/2009\/02\/another-bilski-decision-from-bpai.html","title":"Another Bilski Decision From the BPAI"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"Two-Seventy-One Patent Blog"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/02481083706071978817"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"thr$total":{"$t":"5"}}]}});