<?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/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Bacon Thomas</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.baconthomas.com/wordpress/?feed=rss2" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.baconthomas.com/wordpress</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Jun 2011 13:42:03 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
		<item>
		<title>NON-ANALOGOUS ART DOESN’T HOLD WATER!</title>
		<link>http://www.baconthomas.com/wordpress/?p=309</link>
		<comments>http://www.baconthomas.com/wordpress/?p=309#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jun 2011 13:42:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Federal Court Decisions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patents]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.baconthomas.com/wordpress/?p=309</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In In re Arnold Klein, Appeal 2010-1411 decided June 6, 2011, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) overturned and remanded the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences’ (BPAI) decision that the considered claims were obvious over cited prior art references since the CAFC found that the BPAI failed to offer substantial evidence [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.baconthomas.com/wordpress/?feed=rss2&amp;p=309</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Written Description and Antibody Claims; Centocor Ortho Biotech, Inc. v. Abbot Laboratories</title>
		<link>http://www.baconthomas.com/wordpress/?p=302</link>
		<comments>http://www.baconthomas.com/wordpress/?p=302#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Apr 2011 13:07:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Patents]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.baconthomas.com/wordpress/?p=302</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In the recent Centocor v. Abbot case, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) on invalidity, noninfringement and damages, and held the claims at issue invalid for failure to meet the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. This case involves antibodies to [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.baconthomas.com/wordpress/?feed=rss2&amp;p=302</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>THAT WAS UNEXPECTEDLY…WELL…EXPECTED</title>
		<link>http://www.baconthomas.com/wordpress/?p=296</link>
		<comments>http://www.baconthomas.com/wordpress/?p=296#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Mar 2011 13:47:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Patents]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.baconthomas.com/wordpress/?p=296</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In Ex Parte Akio Ochiai, Masakikosuge, and Takao Daicho, Appeal 2010-001367 decided February 14, 2011, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) affirmed an Examiner’s obviousness rejection of the claims of the application because the Appellants failed to show specific evidence that an ordinary artisan would not have attempted to use individual compounds described [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.baconthomas.com/wordpress/?feed=rss2&amp;p=296</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Issues Supplementary Examination Guidelines on “Definiteness” and Related Issues</title>
		<link>http://www.baconthomas.com/wordpress/?p=290</link>
		<comments>http://www.baconthomas.com/wordpress/?p=290#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Mar 2011 15:13:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Patents]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.baconthomas.com/wordpress/?p=290</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office recently released a notice entitled “Supplementary Guidelines for Determining Compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications.” The guidelines have immediate effect, but the Office will consider written comments received from the public by April 11, 2011. According to the notice, the guidelines [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.baconthomas.com/wordpress/?feed=rss2&amp;p=290</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Patent Eligibility of Medical Diagnostics Claims Reaffirmed</title>
		<link>http://www.baconthomas.com/wordpress/?p=286</link>
		<comments>http://www.baconthomas.com/wordpress/?p=286#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Feb 2011 16:23:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Patents]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.baconthomas.com/wordpress/?p=286</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services (Fed. Cir. 2010) In this case, on remand to the Federal Circuit from the U.S. Supreme Court for further consideration in light of the Supreme Court’s holding in Bilski (130 S. Ct. 3218 (2010)), the Federal Circuit reaffirmed its previous holding that Prometheus’ asserted medical diagnostics claims are [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.baconthomas.com/wordpress/?feed=rss2&amp;p=286</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
