Each of the decisions includes language similar to the following:
Claims X, Y, and Z of the instant application are set forth as method claims that may not fall with one of the four statutory categories of invention recited in 35 U.S.C. § 101. On May 15, 2008, the Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examining Policy, John J. Love, issued a memorandum entitled “Clarification of “Processes” under 35 U.S.C. § 101.” This memorandum is further used in conjunction with the Interim Guidelines and the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 2106.IV.B, when determining whether a claimed invention falls within a statutory category of invention. See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2008)(en banc). Thus, there is a question as to whether claims X, Y, and Z meet the requirements of being a patent eligible process under 35 U.S.C. § 101.It is interesting to note that the decision do not make reference to the post-Bilski memo of January 7, 2009. The watchdog posted a link to this January memo here: Bilski Guidelines Post
Could this signal a new trend from the BPAI?
If you would like .pdfs of the decisions, feel free to email me and I will send them along.