<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	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>Passino PLLC</title>
	<atom:link href="http://seanpassino.com/?feed=rss2" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://seanpassino.com</link>
	<description>US Patents</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 01 Apr 2010 19:49:06 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>PTO&#8217;s final blow to the continuation &amp; claim limit rules.</title>
		<link>http://seanpassino.com/?p=335</link>
		<comments>http://seanpassino.com/?p=335#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:42:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Sean</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[CAFC]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[USPTO]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://seanpassino.com/?p=335</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As previously posted on the pto&#8217;s website, the new director killed the rules to limit continuations and the number of claims.  You could read (yawnnnnnn) the announcement at this link:
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-24667.pdf
We&#8217;ll see what new ways the pto will try to move its backlog along or around.
]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://seanpassino.com/?feed=rss2&amp;p=335</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>CAFC reasoning would find that “Humans” resulting from the process of manufacture are eligible subject matter for patenting!</title>
		<link>http://seanpassino.com/?p=302</link>
		<comments>http://seanpassino.com/?p=302#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Sep 2009 22:15:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Sean</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[CAFC]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://seanpassino.com/?p=302</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Humans moved one step closer to becoming eligible subject matter for patenting after today&#8217;s decision in Prometheus Labs. v. Mayo Collab. Serv. Slip op. 2008-1403 (Fed. Cir. Sep. 16, 2009).  Two active judges of the CAFC applied Bilski’s transformation test and held that the district court erred when it found claims to a method of [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://seanpassino.com/?feed=rss2&amp;p=302</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Update your allowance checklists: CAFC says to rethink about divisional applications.</title>
		<link>http://seanpassino.com/?p=295</link>
		<comments>http://seanpassino.com/?p=295#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Sep 2009 22:46:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Sean</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[CAFC]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[USPTO]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://seanpassino.com/?p=295</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Amgen v. HLR discusses what is and is not a divisional application.  ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://seanpassino.com/?feed=rss2&amp;p=295</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Reexam, another bite at the litigation apple?</title>
		<link>http://seanpassino.com/?p=290</link>
		<comments>http://seanpassino.com/?p=290#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Sep 2009 18:16:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Sean</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[CAFC]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[USPTO]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://seanpassino.com/?p=290</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The power of a parallel reexamination is on display.  You file a suit in 2003.  You win at your trial a holding that your patent was not invalid.  The holding was affirmed on appeal, but the case was remanded for reconsideration of the remedy.  Now a CAFC judge hints to the district court that it could stay proceedings pending the reexam, thereby avoiding a final judgement.  ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://seanpassino.com/?feed=rss2&amp;p=290</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obvious to try and rigid too.</title>
		<link>http://seanpassino.com/?p=285</link>
		<comments>http://seanpassino.com/?p=285#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Aug 2009 02:21:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Sean</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[CAFC]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://seanpassino.com/?p=285</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[BAYER SCHERING PHARMA AG v. BARR LAB., INC., Civ. No. 2008-1282 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 5, 2009) shows the post- KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) reality of what could happen when a court ignores secondary considerations while trying to make a point about KSR.
U.S. Patent No. 6,787,531 covers the contractive known [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://seanpassino.com/?feed=rss2&amp;p=285</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>After 8 ½ years, Yellow beans are obvious…. Eligibility not mentioned</title>
		<link>http://seanpassino.com/?p=278</link>
		<comments>http://seanpassino.com/?p=278#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 11 Jul 2009 03:05:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Sean</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[CAFC]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[USPTO]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://seanpassino.com/?p=278</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In 1994, Patentee purchased a mixed bag of beans containing, among others, yellow beans (P).  Patentee planted and harvested the beans and their producing plants. After three annual planting-harvesting cycles (P&#8211;&#62;F1&#8211;&#62;F2&#8211;&#62;F3), Patentee applied for and was issued U.S. Pat. no. 5,894,079 (“the ‘079 patent”), the infamous yellow-bean patent, containing claims covering, among other things, F3’s [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://seanpassino.com/?feed=rss2&amp;p=278</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fixing the Funk-y Bilski test.</title>
		<link>http://seanpassino.com/?p=262</link>
		<comments>http://seanpassino.com/?p=262#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Jul 2009 11:35:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Sean</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[CAFC]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[USPTO]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://seanpassino.com/?p=262</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This piece builds on earlier pieces starting June 25, 2009, related to Bilski’s machine or transformation test. Ask yourself the following: does Bilski’s test capture all natural phenonema?
Azotobacter is a genus of bacteria capable of fixing nitrogen, i.e., turning nitrogen into ammonium.
                       N2 + 8H+ &#8211;&#62; 2NH4 (details omitted)                                                                   (A)
What would Bilski’s machine or transformation [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://seanpassino.com/?feed=rss2&amp;p=262</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Tafas IV, coming this Fall to consider limits on contuations, etc.</title>
		<link>http://seanpassino.com/?p=259</link>
		<comments>http://seanpassino.com/?p=259#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Jul 2009 00:05:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Sean</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[CAFC]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[USPTO]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://seanpassino.com/?p=259</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On July 6, 2009, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) vacated a panel’s March 20, 2009, decision upholding the part of a permanent injunction stopping the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) from enforcing a regulation limiting the number of continuing applications per patent family but reversing the part of the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://seanpassino.com/?feed=rss2&amp;p=259</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Another test for Bilski&#8217;s machine or transformation.</title>
		<link>http://seanpassino.com/?p=241</link>
		<comments>http://seanpassino.com/?p=241#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Jul 2009 17:17:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Sean</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[CAFC]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[USPTO]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://seanpassino.com/?p=241</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This piece builds on earlier pieces starting June 25, 2009, related to Bilski’s machine or transformation test. Ask yourself the following: would a machine make a difference in the reasoning for declaring this patent&#8217;s claim invalid for embracing ineligible suject matter for patenting? 
Take a look at Prometheus Labs. v. Mayo Collab. Serv., Order Civil No. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://seanpassino.com/?feed=rss2&amp;p=241</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bilski: patent-eligible humans or patent-ineligible administering active-ingredients?</title>
		<link>http://seanpassino.com/?p=230</link>
		<comments>http://seanpassino.com/?p=230#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Jul 2009 00:45:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Sean</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[CAFC]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[USPTO]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://seanpassino.com/?p=230</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This piece builds on earlier pieces starting June 25, 2009, related to Bilski&#8217;s machine or transformation test.  In these earlier pieces, the main question is whether or not the machine or transformation test stinks for the electronic and other arts, like biotech.  This piece further explains why those in the biotech industry cringed after reading [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://seanpassino.com/?feed=rss2&amp;p=230</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
