The USPTO has issued a request for comments on its Interim Guidelines for Patent Subject Matter Eligibility [Link] that were issued in the wake of Ex parte Lundgren [Link Link]. Specific comment is requested on the following topics:
- Whether transforming data from one value to another value constitutes “physicial transformation.”
- Is the PTO’s interpretation of State Street correct— that in the absence of physical transformation there must be a useful, concrete, and tangible result (rather than simply a capability of such a result).
- How should useful, concrete, and tangible be defined?
- What role should preemption play in determining subject matter eligibility?
- Is the PTO’s exclusion of signals per se consistent with case law? Are there policy implications?
The PTO will not start acting on this issue until June 30, 2006 to avoid conflicting with the the LabCorp case. e-mail comments to AB98.Comments@uspto.gov. (Or post them here).
