Top Patently-O Posts from the Past Year

The following is a list of the top Patently-O posts based on the number of web-visits in the past year. You'll notice that Bilski and patentable subject matter are the focus of over half of these posts.

  1. In re Bilski: Patentable Process Must Either (1) be Tied to a particular machine or (2) Transform a Particular Article,
  2. Bilski: Full CAFC to Reexamine the Scope of Subject Matter Patentability,
  3. Bilski v. Doll: Reconsidering Patentable Subject Matter,
  4. Patent Reform Act of 2009,
  5. The Death of Google's Patents? (By John Duffy),
  6. Bilski Briefs,
  7. Tafas v. Doll: Continuation Limits Invalid; Limits on Claims and RCEs are OK,
  8. David Kappos: Next USPTO Director,
  9. Post-Bilski BPAI Approves of Beauregard Claims,
  10. Junk Patents,
  11. How should a future patent attorney choose a law school?,
  12. No No Words: What Words do you Avoid in Patent Applications,
  13. BPAI Applies Bilski to Deny Patentability of Machine Claim,
  14. Ex Parte Bilski: On the Briefs,
  15. Dear Patently-O: How Do You React to the Following Letter,
  16. BPAI: "Programmed Computer Method" Not Patentable Subject Matter,

8 thoughts on “Top Patently-O Posts from the Past Year

  1. 8

    “I would have guessed that the lubricious thermometer case would have been right up there.”

    Except it couldn’t be found. Some postulate that Mooney hijacked it for certain recreational purposes.

  2. 7

    Here is my contest entry:

    Much like pornography, we know unpatentable subject matter when we see it. The machine or transformation smell test is out. The concrete, useful and tangible smell test is in. The case is remanded to the CAFC for further deliberations in accordance with the proper smell test.

  3. 5

    What about a contest? One paragraph summary of the SCOTUS Bilski holding? See who can come closest? Exclude bots.

  4. 4

    “What about the “Top Patently-O COMMENTS from the Past Year” ”

    For some strange reason the top comments would probably celebrate the inane pap from Mooney the resident sleazebag.

  5. 3

    Which means n8hammer has the top comment:

    We further reject calls for categorical exclusions beyond those for fundamental principles already identified by the Supreme Court.22 We rejected just such an exclusion in State Street, noting that the so-called “business method exception” was unlawful and that business method claims (and indeed all process claims) are “subject to the same legal requirements for patentability as applied to any other process or method.” 149 F.3d at 1375-76. We reaffirm this conclusion.23

    Posted by: n8hammer | Oct 30, 2008 at 12:12 PM

    I don’t think the BPAI heard you, hammer.

  6. 2

    Just take the first comment from each of the top articles. It is the comment displayed on top of all the others.

Comments are closed.