<?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>Patent News Daily &#187; Federal Circuit</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.patentnewsdaily.com/category/federal-circuit/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.patentnewsdaily.com</link>
	<description>Just another WordPress weblog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 Jul 2009 23:16:28 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.1</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>The Time for Talk has Passed, So Lets Get Started</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/07/29/the-time-for-talk-has-passed-so-lets-get-started/id=4719/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/07/29/the-time-for-talk-has-passed-so-lets-get-started/id=4719/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Jul 2009 10:30:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gene Quinn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog.com Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Fools™]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Reform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USPTO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=4719</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[About 18 months ago while I was at PLI headquarters in New York City teaching a Patent Bar Review Course, my friend Bob Spar suggested that my view of Patent Office rulemaking was not helpful and in fact was part of the problem and that patent attorneys are at least as responsible for the state [...]


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2008/11/04/international-patent-cooperation-project/id=232/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: International Patent Cooperation Project'>International Patent Cooperation Project</a><small>The United States Patent and Trademark Office announced on Friday, October 31, 2008, that a select g</small></li><li><a href='http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/07/30/suggestions-for-fixing-the-us-patent-system/id=4725/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Suggestions for Fixing the US Patent System'>Suggestions for Fixing the US Patent System</a><small>In order to jump start a constructive debate I throw out the following nine suggestions that would, </small></li><li><a href='http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/01/15/mea-culpa-patent-reform-and-other-issues/id=1549/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Mea Culpa, Patent Reform and Other Issues'>Mea Culpa, Patent Reform and Other Issues</a><small> I confess, it was me who fed Gene Quinn the erroneous info about Steve Kunin heading back the US PT</small></li></ol>

Related posts brought to you by <a href='http://mitcho.com/code/yarpp/'>Yet Another Related Posts Plugin</a>.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[About 18 months ago while I was at PLI headquarters in New York City teaching a Patent Bar Review Course, my friend Bob Spar suggested that my view of Patent Office rulemaking was not helpful and in fact was part of the problem and that patent attorneys are at least as responsible for the state [...]


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2008/11/04/international-patent-cooperation-project/id=232/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: International Patent Cooperation Project'>International Patent Cooperation Project</a><small>The United States Patent and Trademark Office announced on Friday, October 31, 2008, that a select g</small></li><li><a href='http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/07/30/suggestions-for-fixing-the-us-patent-system/id=4725/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Suggestions for Fixing the US Patent System'>Suggestions for Fixing the US Patent System</a><small>In order to jump start a constructive debate I throw out the following nine suggestions that would, </small></li><li><a href='http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/01/15/mea-culpa-patent-reform-and-other-issues/id=1549/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Mea Culpa, Patent Reform and Other Issues'>Mea Culpa, Patent Reform and Other Issues</a><small> I confess, it was me who fed Gene Quinn the erroneous info about Steve Kunin heading back the US PT</small></li></ol>

Related posts brought to you by <a href='http://mitcho.com/code/yarpp/'>Yet Another Related Posts Plugin</a>.]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/07/29/the-time-for-talk-has-passed-so-lets-get-started/id=4719/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>On the Road: Bilski Examiner Interview and CNN</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/07/13/on-the-road-bilski-examiner-interview-and-cnn/id=4557/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/07/13/on-the-road-bilski-examiner-interview-and-cnn/id=4557/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Jul 2009 19:22:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Mark Malek</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guest Bloggers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Inventors Information]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Fools™]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Software]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology & Innovation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USPTO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bad advice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bilski]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cnn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[provisional patent application]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[utility patent]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=4557</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I spent the better part of last week in Washington, DC conducting Examiner interviews for some of my clients that have pending software patent applications.  The great news is that I believe we now have a handle on the ever changing Bilski ruling.  I know it sounds like a misstatement to say that [...]


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/07/13/examiner-interview-changes-favor-in-person-meeting/id=4562/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Examiner Interview Changes Favor In Person Meeting'>Examiner Interview Changes Favor In Person Meeting</a><small>Last week I was at the Patent Office interviewing a case along with Mark Malek, who was in town from</small></li><li><a href='http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/06/29/how-to-patent-software-in-a-post-bilski-era/id=4311/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: How to Patent Software in a Post Bilski Era'>How to Patent Software in a Post Bilski Era</a><small>Those familiar with the ongoing debate regarding the patentability of software and business methods </small></li><li><a href='http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/05/19/bilski-not-so-bad-for-software-patents-after-all/id=3582/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Bilski Not So Bad for Software Patents After All'>Bilski Not So Bad for Software Patents After All</a><small>On October 30, 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its much anti</small></li></ol>

Related posts brought to you by <a href='http://mitcho.com/code/yarpp/'>Yet Another Related Posts Plugin</a>.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[I spent the better part of last week in Washington, DC conducting Examiner interviews for some of my clients that have pending software patent applications.  The great news is that I believe we now have a handle on the ever changing Bilski ruling.  I know it sounds like a misstatement to say that [...]


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/07/13/examiner-interview-changes-favor-in-person-meeting/id=4562/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Examiner Interview Changes Favor In Person Meeting'>Examiner Interview Changes Favor In Person Meeting</a><small>Last week I was at the Patent Office interviewing a case along with Mark Malek, who was in town from</small></li><li><a href='http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/06/29/how-to-patent-software-in-a-post-bilski-era/id=4311/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: How to Patent Software in a Post Bilski Era'>How to Patent Software in a Post Bilski Era</a><small>Those familiar with the ongoing debate regarding the patentability of software and business methods </small></li><li><a href='http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/05/19/bilski-not-so-bad-for-software-patents-after-all/id=3582/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Bilski Not So Bad for Software Patents After All'>Bilski Not So Bad for Software Patents After All</a><small>On October 30, 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its much anti</small></li></ol>

Related posts brought to you by <a href='http://mitcho.com/code/yarpp/'>Yet Another Related Posts Plugin</a>.]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/07/13/on-the-road-bilski-examiner-interview-and-cnn/id=4557/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
