<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Argument Day in Bilski at US Supreme Court</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/11/09/argument-day-in-bilski-at-us-supreme-court/id=7209/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/11/09/argument-day-in-bilski-at-us-supreme-court/id=7209/</link>
	<description>Patents, Software Patents, Patent Applications &#38; Patent Law</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 02:54:32 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Rob</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/11/09/argument-day-in-bilski-at-us-supreme-court/id=7209/#comment-9165</link>
		<dc:creator>Rob</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 19:49:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=7209#comment-9165</guid>
		<description>The odd thing is that Benson&#039;s application claim 8, while found by the Supremes to be unpatentable, should have been patentable under the machine or transformation test, as it recites a specific piece of equipment, a reentrant shift register.  Compare, for example, the recent BPAI case where a computer that includes two processors is a specific device rather than a general purpose computer.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The odd thing is that Benson&#8217;s application claim 8, while found by the Supremes to be unpatentable, should have been patentable under the machine or transformation test, as it recites a specific piece of equipment, a reentrant shift register.  Compare, for example, the recent BPAI case where a computer that includes two processors is a specific device rather than a general purpose computer.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Technically Legal &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Bilski at the Supreme Court Today</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/11/09/argument-day-in-bilski-at-us-supreme-court/id=7209/#comment-9161</link>
		<dc:creator>Technically Legal &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Bilski at the Supreme Court Today</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:44:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=7209#comment-9161</guid>
		<description>[...] In the meanwhile, here&#8217;s a smattering of news and analysis, courtesy of Google News. If you&#8217;re in the mood for something more incisive, take a look at Gene Quinn&#8217;s analysis of Bilski. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] In the meanwhile, here&#8217;s a smattering of news and analysis, courtesy of Google News. If you&#8217;re in the mood for something more incisive, take a look at Gene Quinn&#8217;s analysis of Bilski. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: uberVU - social comments</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/11/09/argument-day-in-bilski-at-us-supreme-court/id=7209/#comment-9150</link>
		<dc:creator>uberVU - social comments</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 10:06:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=7209#comment-9150</guid>
		<description>
&lt;strong&gt;Social comments and analytics for this post...&lt;/strong&gt;

This post was mentioned on Twitter by SciSolutions: #Biotechnology Argument Day in Bilski at US Supreme Court - IPWatchdog.com http://bit.ly/GIQQf...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Social comments and analytics for this post&#8230;</strong></p>
<p>This post was mentioned on Twitter by SciSolutions: #Biotechnology Argument Day in Bilski at US Supreme Court &#8211; IPWatchdog.com <a href="http://bit.ly/GIQQf.." rel="nofollow">http://bit.ly/GIQQf..</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

