<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	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:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Cert Petition Filed in Bilski</title>
	<atom:link href="http://inventivestep.net/2009/01/29/cert-petition-filed-in-bilski/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://inventivestep.net/2009/01/29/cert-petition-filed-in-bilski/</link>
	<description>A blog dedicated to a discussion of patent law issues and strategies</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Jan 2012 15:12:20 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bilski &#171; INVENTIVE STEP</title>
		<link>http://inventivestep.net/2009/01/29/cert-petition-filed-in-bilski/#comment-3221</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bilski &#171; INVENTIVE STEP]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Jun 2010 00:18:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://inventivestep.net/?p=418#comment-3221</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] is really an instance of bad facts making bad law.  As previously noted, Bilski&#8217;s invention is not a compelling one for Supreme Court review, as the invention sought [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] is really an instance of bad facts making bad law.  As previously noted, Bilski&#8217;s invention is not a compelling one for Supreme Court review, as the invention sought [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: PTO Files Brief Opposing Cert in Bilski &#171; Inventive Step</title>
		<link>http://inventivestep.net/2009/01/29/cert-petition-filed-in-bilski/#comment-268</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[PTO Files Brief Opposing Cert in Bilski &#171; Inventive Step]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 May 2009 14:08:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://inventivestep.net/?p=418#comment-268</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] previously wrote about whether the Supreme Court should hear this case.  The points in that post still remain.  The Bilski decision is terrible for business methods and [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] previously wrote about whether the Supreme Court should hear this case.  The points in that post still remain.  The Bilski decision is terrible for business methods and [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Amicus Briefs Filed in Support of Bilski &#171; Inventive Step</title>
		<link>http://inventivestep.net/2009/01/29/cert-petition-filed-in-bilski/#comment-110</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Amicus Briefs Filed in Support of Bilski &#171; Inventive Step]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 2009 15:50:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://inventivestep.net/?p=418#comment-110</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] Briefs Filed in Support of&#160;Bilski  As an update on Bilski&#8217;s petition for certioriari, Patently-O has collected the amicus briefs that have [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Briefs Filed in Support of&nbsp;Bilski  As an update on Bilski&#8217;s petition for certioriari, Patently-O has collected the amicus briefs that have [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

