If you practice in the software patent arena, you might find the following comments by Judge Moore of interest with respect to section 101 and 103 issues.<\/p>\n
In Classen Immunotherapies v. Biogen-Idec, et al.<\/span>, 2006-1634 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 19, 2008), she commented about applying a mental process exception so broadly under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7101 that it would lead down a slippery slope to\u00a0invalidate all software patents:\u00a0 [Listen<\/a>].\u00a0 Classen<\/span> was decided prior to the Supreme Court’s opinion in Bilski<\/span>.<\/p>\n In In re Rackman<\/span>, 2009-1217 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 4, 2009), she\u00a0pushed back on the PTO’s assertion that it was obvious to combine references if they merely enhanced functionality of the underlying reference, as to do so would arguably make every software invention obvious: [Listen<\/a>].<\/p>\n You can\u00a0read the court’s opinions\u00a0in Classen<\/span> and Rackman<\/span> [here<\/a>] and [here<\/a>], respectively.<\/p>\n You can\u00a0listen to the entire oral arguments in Classen<\/span> and Rackman<\/span> [here<\/a>] and [here<\/a>], respectively.<\/p>\n