<?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: Mayo Asks Supreme Court to Review Another Patentable Subject Matter Case</title>
	<atom:link href="http://inventivestep.net/2009/10/30/mayo-asks-supreme-court-to-review-another-patentable-subject-matter-case/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://inventivestep.net/2009/10/30/mayo-asks-supreme-court-to-review-another-patentable-subject-matter-case/</link>
	<description>A blog dedicated to a discussion of patent law issues and strategies</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:23:52 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bilski Reaction &#171; INVENTIVE STEP</title>
		<link>http://inventivestep.net/2009/10/30/mayo-asks-supreme-court-to-review-another-patentable-subject-matter-case/#comment-3262</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bilski Reaction &#171; INVENTIVE STEP]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Jun 2010 19:27:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://inventivestep.net/?p=1209#comment-3262</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] As many predicted, the Supreme Court issued a GVR (grant, vacate, remand) order in this case and sent it back to the Federal Circuit to reconsider its opinion in light of the Supreme Court&#8217;s Bilski opinion.  Given that the Court didn&#8217;t change the law of patentable subject matter in Bilski, it is hard to envision a different outcome. [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] As many predicted, the Supreme Court issued a GVR (grant, vacate, remand) order in this case and sent it back to the Federal Circuit to reconsider its opinion in light of the Supreme Court&#8217;s Bilski opinion.  Given that the Court didn&#8217;t change the law of patentable subject matter in Bilski, it is hard to envision a different outcome. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

