from: lizzy sent: wednesday, march 6, 2019 8:33 pm to: … · from: lizzy . sent: wednesday, march...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
From: Lizzy
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
![Page 2: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 4:38 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO to not adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
![Page 3: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
From: Eric
Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 6:38 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO ***NOT*** to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Sincerely,
Robert Eric Fitzgerald
Loudoun County, VA
![Page 4: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
From: llevey 54
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:19 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
![Page 5: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
From: Meee
Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2019 8:16 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: USPTO 2019 Revised Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
![Page 6: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
From: pmc
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 6:38 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Get to work, and uphold the law.
![Page 7: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
From: Rob
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 10:17 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
![Page 8: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
From: trespassers
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 6:53 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
![Page 9: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
From: Harry Altman
Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 3:53 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053.
Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
![Page 10: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
From: Benjamin Austin
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 4:59 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
![Page 11: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
From: Joshua Barnhill
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 5:04 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
![Page 12: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
From: Tom B
Sent: Saturday, March 9, 2019 2:08 AM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Tom Behrendt
New Haven, CT
![Page 13: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
From: Tara Bellafiore
Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 1:56 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
![Page 14: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
From: Zachary Boerner
Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 8:00 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Thank you,
-Zachary Boerner
![Page 15: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
From: Edd Bromiel
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 9:28 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
![Page 16: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
From: Carl Brown
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 5:05 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
![Page 17: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
From: Alex Bullard
Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 5:27 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
![Page 18: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
From: Harry Bullen
Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 6:50 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Harry Bullen
![Page 19: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
From: Chris Bushick
Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 5:30 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
To Whom it May Concern:
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053.
Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Sincerely,
Chris Bushick
![Page 20: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
From: Jason Buster
Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 8:41 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
--
Thanks,
Jason K. Buster
(303) 351-2006
![Page 21: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
From: Clint Calhoun
Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 3:47 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
![Page 22: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
From: Ross Centers
Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 1:57 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The business of Radiant PPC will be harmed due to the chilling effect this guidance will have if implemented.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
![Page 23: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
From: Alan Chen
Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 7:30 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Thanks,
- alan
--
- alan Chen
![Page 24: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
From: Richard Collins
Sent: Sunday, March 2, 2019 5:16 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility,
Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly. The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest. The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
![Page 25: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
From: Sarah Collison
Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 6:48 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
![Page 26: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
From: Rich Curtis
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 6:21 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
![Page 27: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
From: Graham Dawson
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 5:01 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Sincerely,
Graham Dawson
![Page 28: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
From: Luca De Feo
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 6:22 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
To whom it may concern,
I am Associate Professor in Computer Science in University of Versailles, France. My research focuses on applied mathematics, computer security and cryptography. I am involved in many software projects, both in the public and the private sector, open and closed source; in particular, with collaborators from Microsoft, Amazon, and various universities and small companies, I am involved in the NIST standardization effort for post-quantum cryptography¹. While I value patents, I think overly broad and vague patent claims damage innovation and business.
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No.
PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection.
It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Sincerely,
--
Luca De Feo
Maître de conférences
Laboratoire de Mathématiques de Versailles Université de Versailles – Saint Quentin en Yvelines bât. Descartes, bureau 309B
+33 1 39 25 40 35
¹https://gcc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcsrc.nist.gov%2Fgroups%2FST%2Fpost-quantum-crypto%2F&data=02%7C01%7Celigibility2019%40uspto.gov%7C13592d1693ce415edb2f08d6a28a9
![Page 29: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
e87%7Cff4abfe983b540268b8ffa69a1cad0b8%7C1%7C0%7C636875113579292128&sdata=30JkGnaFRWf3o4WtA%2BmH%2FnFo4MQBaqk6zNADKdumF7k%3D&reserved=0
![Page 30: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
From: Lonny Eachus
Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 9:59 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Sincerely,
Lonny Eachus
Spokane, WA
![Page 31: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
From: Cameron Elliott
Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 2:28 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly. The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest. The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Sincerely, Cameron Elliott
501 roy st #241
seattle, wa 98109
![Page 32: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
From: Joseph Erb
Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 5:46 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
______________
J. Christopher Erb
erblaw
20 South Valley Road, Suite 100 | Paoli, PA 19301 | USA | phone 610-993-2690 x306 | fax 610-993-2692
The Erb Law Firm PC is a member of Warwick Legal Network, an association of independent law firms.
The contents of this message are confidential and may be attorney-client privileged.
![Page 33: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
From: Clark C. Evans
Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 7:25 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Any expansion of software patents is a serious hindrance to small businesses such as my own. Patents have become too costly to do and provide negligible benefit. They do provide, on the other hand, significant risk for investment since independently developed works may have dozens of patents you don't know that apply to them.
Clark Evans
5410 S. Kimbark
Chicago IL 60615
![Page 34: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
From: Rainer Fehrenbacher
Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 12:59 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
![Page 35: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
From: Christopher Ferguson
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 5:01 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
Hello,
I strongly urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to correctly apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Chris Ferguson
![Page 36: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
From: Brolly Ferret
Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 3:15 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
![Page 37: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
From: Julia Freewoman
Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 3:12 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
![Page 38: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
From: Trent Fulton
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 5:12 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
![Page 39: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
From: Jason Gaiser
Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 4:40 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
![Page 40: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
From: Jane George
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 5:21 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
![Page 41: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
From: Jonathan Gevaryahu
Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 5:36 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053.
Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
![Page 42: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
From: Carl Gilchrist
Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 6:13 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
![Page 43: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
From: Roger Goldfinger
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 9:46 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
![Page 44: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
From: Adam Goodman
Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 6:35 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
![Page 45: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
From: George Hahn
Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 5:18 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
![Page 46: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
From: M. Hale-Evans
Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 9:56 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Very sincerely yours,
Marty Hale-Evans
![Page 47: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
From: Ron Hale-Evans
Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 3:19 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
![Page 48: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
From: Aaron Muir Hamilton
Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 5:24 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053.
Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
As a software developer and businessperson who integrates a great number of ideas which would not be patentable without the new guidance, I could stand to benefit financially from it.
As a U.S. citizen I hold the role of the Supreme Court in high regard, and the new guidance seems to contradict the Supreme Court's answers.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon the revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Aaron Muir Hamilton <[email protected]>
![Page 49: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
From: glenn harper
Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 6:05 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
![Page 50: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
From: Alex Henrie
Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 12:07 AM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
-Alex
![Page 51: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
From: Alan Hicks
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 5:00 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
![Page 52: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
From: Mark Hinkle
Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 6:55 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
![Page 53: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
From: J. Austin Hughey
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 5:01 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Sincerely,
J. Austin Hughey
Software Engineer
Small Business Owner/Entrepreneur
El Paso, TX
![Page 54: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
From: Jeremiah Johnson
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 5:08 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Thank you,
Jeremiah
![Page 55: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
From: steven k
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 4:56 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
![Page 56: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
From: Evan Kaufman
Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 3:51 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
![Page 57: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
From: James Keener
Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 2:54 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
![Page 58: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
From: Lawrence Kimsey,Jr.
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 9:19 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
![Page 59: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/59.jpg)
From: Aaron Kitzmiller
Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 6:43 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
![Page 60: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/60.jpg)
From: Tyler Knappe
Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 7:03 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
![Page 61: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/61.jpg)
From: Cody Laurent
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 6:37 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Very Respectfully,
Cody Laurent
![Page 62: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/62.jpg)
From: Stella Lee
Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 7:03 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
![Page 63: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/63.jpg)
From: yobananaboy elias.leers
Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 2:00 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Thanks,
Elias Leers
![Page 64: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/64.jpg)
From: Dana Longley
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 6:14 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Thanks,
Dana Longley
![Page 65: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/65.jpg)
From: Dana Longley
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 6:14 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Thanks,
Dana Longley
![Page 66: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/66.jpg)
From: Michael A. Lowry
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 6:34 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
To whom it may concern:
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Regards,
Michael L.
—
Michael A. Lowry
![Page 67: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/67.jpg)
From: Denise Lytle
Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2019 7:08 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Thank you,
Denise Lytle
Fords, NJ
![Page 68: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/68.jpg)
From: Kurtis MacFerrin
Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 7:25 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Please reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I respectfully urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
![Page 69: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/69.jpg)
From: Rod Mach
Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 8:06 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
-Rod
![Page 70: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/70.jpg)
From: Robert Macmillan
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 6:41 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO¬P¬2018¬0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Robert & Lil Macmillan
![Page 71: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/71.jpg)
From: Paul Malikowski
Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 1:15 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
![Page 72: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/72.jpg)
From: marc maron
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 4:46 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
![Page 73: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/73.jpg)
From: Rick Mauck
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 5:06 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
![Page 74: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/74.jpg)
From: mike mccune
Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 3:21 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053.
Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
![Page 75: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/75.jpg)
From: Jay McHugh
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 5:19 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
![Page 76: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/76.jpg)
From: Keith Mosher
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 5:17 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
![Page 77: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/77.jpg)
From: Matthew Murray
Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 10:38 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
![Page 78: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/78.jpg)
From: Brian O'Connell
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:07 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
![Page 79: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/79.jpg)
From: Outlook Team
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 5:56 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
![Page 80: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/80.jpg)
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 12:11 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO-P-2018-0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Thank you,
Mike Overholt
Holmen WI 54636
![Page 81: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/81.jpg)
From: Brecht Palombo
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 5:50 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
![Page 82: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/82.jpg)
From: Hubert Pan
Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 11:59 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
Granting monopolies hurts our economy.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Thanks,
Sincerely,
Hubert Pan
![Page 83: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/83.jpg)
From: Nikolaos Perrakis
Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 4:04 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Kind Regards,
Nikolaos PErrakis
![Page 84: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/84.jpg)
From: Andy Petruski
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 5:29 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
![Page 85: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/85.jpg)
From: Mark Powell
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 4:57 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Best regards,
-Mark
![Page 86: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/86.jpg)
From: R.S. Preuss
Sent: Thursday, March 7, 2019 12:24 AM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Thank you for your attention.
-- Robert Preuss
Ballston Spa, NY
![Page 87: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/87.jpg)
From: jason prudencio
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 11:23 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
![Page 88: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/88.jpg)
From: PTMO IGAS
Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 6:30 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
![Page 89: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/89.jpg)
From: J.B. Reefer
Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 3:09 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
![Page 90: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/90.jpg)
From: Phillip Rhodes
Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 12:43 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility,
Fogbeam Labs urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No.
PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection.
It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
--
Phillip Rhodes
Founder / CEO
Fogbeam Labs
919-265-4489
![Page 91: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/91.jpg)
From: Max Roberg
Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 2:02 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No.
PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection.
It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Thank You,
Max Roberg
![Page 92: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/92.jpg)
From: Onawa Rock
Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 9:54 AM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
![Page 93: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/93.jpg)
From: Justin A Ryan
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 5:02 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
![Page 94: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/94.jpg)
From: Ruben Sanchez
Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 1:56 AM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
![Page 95: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/95.jpg)
From: Sam Scarnati
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 5:17 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
![Page 96: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/96.jpg)
From: AAACR TS
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 5:34 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Christine Sears
![Page 97: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/97.jpg)
From: Robert Seeger
Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 4:13 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
![Page 98: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/98.jpg)
From: Jaclyn Selby
Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 3:05 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
![Page 99: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/99.jpg)
From: Jimbo Simms
Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2019 10:29 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
![Page 100: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/100.jpg)
From: Corey Slavonic
Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 4:41 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
Hello,
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
-Corey
![Page 101: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/101.jpg)
From: David Smith
Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2019 7:55 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
![Page 102: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/102.jpg)
From: Graham Smith
Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 4:01 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
![Page 103: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/103.jpg)
From: Alex Sullivan
Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 4:18 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
![Page 104: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/104.jpg)
From: Brian Tarricone
Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 3:38 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053.
The main result of adopting this guidance will be to encourage examiners to grant more patents that, if later reviewed by courts, will be found invalid. This will end up costing businesses and individuals money defending frivolous patent claims, at great cost to the economy and harm to the public interest.
The USPTO's role is to apply Supreme Court decisions, not to attempt to reinterpret and narrow them in order to further the agenda of third parties.
Regards,
Brian Tarricone
San Francisco, CA 94103
![Page 105: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/105.jpg)
From: Haley Timothy
Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2019 7:19 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
![Page 106: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/106.jpg)
From: Jeff Torres
Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 6:56 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey Torres
![Page 107: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/107.jpg)
From: Mark Turner
Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 3:39 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
-Mark
![Page 108: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/108.jpg)
From: jon paul Uritis
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 7:20 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
Hi There!
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
thank you!!!!
![Page 109: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/109.jpg)
From: Jim VanNest
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 4:57 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
![Page 110: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/110.jpg)
From: Jeffrey Vasey
Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 7:17 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
![Page 111: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/111.jpg)
From: Howard Wapner
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2019 1:44 AM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions
to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Howard Wapner
![Page 112: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/112.jpg)
From: Michael Weaver
Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 4:46 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Sincerely,
Michael Weaver
![Page 113: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/113.jpg)
From: Michael Weems
Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 3:21 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Sincerely
Michael Weems
![Page 114: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/114.jpg)
From: Kevin Whittinghill
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 5:00 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Thank you,
Kevin Whittinghill
![Page 115: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/115.jpg)
From: Robin Whitworth
Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 11:09 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
![Page 116: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/116.jpg)
From: Jordan Wilson
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 5:01 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
![Page 117: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/117.jpg)
From: matthew wilson
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 4:57 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
![Page 118: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/118.jpg)
From: Jay Wineinger
Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019 2:52 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
![Page 119: From: Lizzy Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM To: … · From: Lizzy . Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 8:33 PM . To: Eligibility2019 . Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022062604/5fc5bc2d6fa4fd1caa61b993/html5/thumbnails/119.jpg)
From: Jason Woodrich
Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2019 7:57 PM
To: Eligibility2019
Subject: Reject new guidelines on subject matter eligibility, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053
I urge the USPTO not to adopt the guidance on subject matter eligibility set forth in the Request for Comments, Docket No. PTO–P–2018–0053. Instead, the USPTO should provide guidance that ensures examiners apply the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision correctly.
The new guidance expands upon a small number of decisions finding patent claims eligible and ignores the far more numerous decisions in which courts have rejected claims as ineligible for patent protection. It distorts the law and will encourage examiners to grant invalid, abstract patents. Such patents wrongly claim basic ideas, increase litigation costs to no benefit, and harm the public interest.
The USPTO’s role is not to narrow Supreme Court holdings, it is to apply them. Please abandon revisions to the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.