IconFind, Inc. v. Google, Inc.

Filing 77

OPPOSITION by IconFind, Inc. to 73 RENEWED MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D)(Folgers, Anna) Modified on 1/10/2012 (Meuleman, A).

EXHIBIT B

UNITED 3TAm%
PATENT AND W E M A R K OFFICE

MEMORANDUM

DATE:

July 27,201 0

TO:
FRQM:

Acting Associate Commissioner
For Patent Examination Policy
SUBJECT:

Interim Guidance for Determining Subject Matter Eligibility for Process
Claims in View of Bikski v. Kappas

The attached Federal Register notice entitled Interim Guidance for Determining Subject fitter
Eligibility far Process Claims in View of Bihki v. Kappos (hterim Bilski Guidanm}is for use by
USPTO personnel in determining subject matter eligibility under 3 5 U.S.C. .§ 101 in view ofthe
recent decision by the United States Supreme Court (Supreme Court) in BiIski v,&~p5,561
U.S. -(20 10) (Bilski). The I~arerim
Bilski Guidance is a supplement to the previously issued
Interim Examinabion Instructionsfor Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 L6.S.C. j 151
d a d August 24,2009 (Augwst 2009 Ikterim Imtrucdiom) and the memorandumto the Patent
Examining Corps on the S u p m e Court h i s i o n in BiIski dated June 28,20 10, The August 2009
Interim imfrucbiumam to b consulted for determiniug subject matter eligibility under 3 5 U.S.C.
e
5 101 of machine, composition, and manufacture claims.

The Interim Bihki Guidance provides factors to consider in deterrnirlingwhether a claim is directed
t an abstract idea and is therefo~e ot patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 5 101. Under tke I t r m
o
n
nei
Bilski G u i h c e , factors that weigh in favor af patent-eligibility satisfy the criteria af the machineor-transformation test or provide evidence that the abstract idea has been pradically applied, and
factors that weigh against patent-eligibilityneithersatisfy the criteria of the machine-ortransfurmation test nor provide evidence that the abstract idea has been pmtically applied. A
summary sheet offiese f c o s is also attached b this memorandum. The machine-oratr
transformation test remains an investigative tool and is a useful starti.ng point for determining
whether a claimed inventionis a patent-eligible process under 3 5 U.S.C. 5 101. The Infe~irn iski
B
Gwidmceprovides additional factors to aid in the determination of whether a claimed method that
fails the machinwr-transftmmtiontest is nonethelesspatenteligible (is., is not an abstmct idea),
and also whether a claimed method that meets the machine-or-transformation test is nonetheless
patent-ineligible (Le., is an abstract idea). Since claims dir&d to abstract ideas were not patenteligible prior to BilskmSsubject matter eligibility outcomes based on ~e interim Bilski Guidance are
not likeiy to change in most MS.
The difference is that in some rare cases, factors beyond those
relevant to mwhine-or-transformation may weigh for o against a finding that a claim is directed to
r
an abstract idea.
Finally, under the principles of compact prosecution, Office personnel should state all noncumulative masons and bases for rejecting claims in the fs Office action, and should avoid
rt
focusing on issues of paten-eligibility under 3 5 U.S.C, 4 101 to the detriment of consideringan
appIication for compliance with the requirements of 3 5 U.S.C, 9 5 102, 103, and 112, and also avoid
treating an application solely on the basis of patent-eligibility under 3 5 U.S .C. 4 10 1except i the
n
most extreme cases.

--

101 Method Eligibility Quick Reference Sheet
The factors below should be considered when analyzing the claim as a whole to evaluate whether a method
claim is directed to an abstract idea. However, not every factor will be relevant to every claim and, as such,
need not be considered in every analysis. When it is determined that the claim is patent-eligible, the analysis
may be concluded. In those instances where patent-eligibility cannot easily be identified, every relevant factor
should be carefully weighed before making a conclusion. Additionally, no factor is conclusive by itself, and the
weight accorded each factor will vary based upon the facts of the application. These factors are not intended to
be exclusive or exhaustive as there may be more pertinent factors depending on the particular technology of the
claim. For assistance in applying these factors, please consult the accompanying “Interim Guidance” memo and
TC management.
Factors Weighing Toward Eligibility:
• Recitation of a machine or transformation (either express or inherent).
o
Machine or transformation is particular.
o
Machine or transformation meaningfully limits the execution of the steps.
o
Machine implements the claimed steps.
o
The article being transformed is particular.
o
The article undergoes a change in state or thing (e.g., objectively different function or use).
o
The article being transformed is an object or substance.
• The claim is directed toward applying a law of nature.
o
Law of nature is practically applied.
o
The application of the law of nature meaningfully limits the execution of the steps.
• The claim is more than a mere statement of a concept.
o
The claim describes a particular solution to a problem to be solved.
o
The claim implements a concept in some tangible way.
o
The performance of the steps is observable and verifiable.
Factors Weighing Against Eligibility:
• No recitation of a machine or transformation (either express or inherent).
• Insufficient recitation of a machine or transformation.
o
Involvement of machine, or transformation, with the steps is merely nominally, insignificantly, or
tangentially related to the performance of the steps, e.g., data gathering, or merely recites a field in
which the method is intended to be applied.
o
Machine is generically recited such that it covers any machine capable of performing the claimed
step(s).
o
Machine is merely an object on which the method operates.
o
Transformation involves only a change in position or location of article.
o
“Article” is merely a general concept (see notes below).
• The claim is not directed to an application of a law of nature.
o
The claim would monopolize a natural force or patent a scientific fact; e.g., by claiming every mode
of producing an effect of that law of nature.
o
Law of nature is applied in a merely subjective determination.
o
Law of nature is merely nominally, insignificantly, or tangentially related to the performance of the
steps.
• The claim is a mere statement of a general concept (see notes below for examples).
o
Use of the concept, as expressed in the method, would effectively grant a monopoly over the concept.
o
Both known and unknown uses of the concept are covered, and can be performed through any existing
or future-devised machinery, or even without any apparatus.
o
The claim only states a problem to be solved.
o
The general concept is disembodied.
o
The mechanism(s) by which the steps are implemented is subjective or imperceptible.

1

NOTES:
1) Examples of general concepts include, but are not limited, to:
Basic economic practices or theories (e.g., hedging, insurance, financial transactions, marketing);
Basic legal theories (e.g., contracts, dispute resolution, rules of law);
Mathematical concepts (e.g., algorithms, spatial relationships, geometry);
Mental activity (e.g., forming a judgment, observation, evaluation, or opinion);
Interpersonal interactions or relationships (e.g., conversing, dating);
Teaching concepts (e.g., memorization, repetition);
Human behavior (e.g., exercising, wearing clothing, following rules or instructions);
Instructing “how business should be conducted.”
2)
For a detailed explanation of the terms machine, transformation, article, particular, extrasolution
activity, and field-of-use, please refer to the Interim Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Examination
Instructions of August 24, 2009.
3)
When making a subject matter eligibility determination, the relevant factors should be weighed with
respect to the claim as a whole to evaluate whether the claim is patent-eligible or whether the abstract idea
exception renders the claim ineligible. When it is determined that the claim is patent-eligible, the analysis may
be concluded. In those instances where patent-eligibility cannot be easily identified, every relevant factor
should be carefully weighed before making a conclusion. Not every factor will be relevant to every claim.
While no factor is conclusive by itself, the weight accorded each factor will vary based upon the facts of the
application. These factors are not intended to be exclusive or exhaustive as there may be more pertinent factors
depending on the particular technology of the claim.
4) Sample Form Paragraphs:
a.
Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, claim(s) [1]
held to claim an abstract idea, and is therefore rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The
rationale for this finding is explained below: [2]
1. In bracket 2, identify the decisive factors weighing against patent-eligibility, and explain the manner
in which these factors support a conclusion of ineligibility. The explanation needs to be sufficient to
establish a prima facie case of ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
b.
Dependent claim(s) [1] when analyzed as a whole are held to be ineligible subject matter and are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim is
not directed to an abstract idea, as detailed below: [2]
1. In bracket 2, provide an explanation as to why the claim is directed to an abstract idea; for instance,
that the additional limitations are no more than a field of use or merely involve insignificant
extrasolution activity; e.g., data gathering. The explanation needs to be sufficient to establish a prima
facie case of ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

2

43922

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 27, 2010 / Notices

administrative review. As a result of our
review, we determine that a weightedaverage dumping margin of 2.43 percent
exists for Far Eastern Textile Limited for
the period May 1, 2008, through April
30, 2009.

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES

Assessment Rates
The Department shall determine and
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) shall assess antidumping duties
on all appropriate entries. Although Far
Eastern Textile Limited indicated that it
was not the importer of record for any
of its sales to the United States during
the period of review, it reported the
names of the importers of record for all
of its U.S. sales. Because Far Eastern
Textile Limited also reported the
entered value for all of its U.S. sales, we
have calculated importer-specific
assessment rates for the merchandise in
question by aggregating the dumping
margins we calculated for all U.S. sales
to each importer and dividing this
amount by the total entered value of
those sales.
The Department clarified its
‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on
May 6, 2003. This clarification will
apply to entries of subject merchandise
during the period of review produced by
Far Eastern Textile Limited for which it
did not know its merchandise was
destined for the United States. In such
instances, we will instruct CBP to
liquidate unreviewed entries at the allothers rate if there is no rate for the
intermediate company(ies) involved in
the transaction. For a full discussion of
this clarification, see Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Proceedings:
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68
FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).
The Department intends to issue
assessment instructions directly to CBP
15 days after publication of these final
results of review.
Cash-Deposit Requirements
The following deposit requirements
will be effective upon publication of
this notice of final results of
administrative review for all shipments
of PSF from Taiwan entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the date of
publication, as provided by section
751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cashdeposit rate for Far Eastern Textile
Limited will be 2.43 percent; (2) for
merchandise exported by manufacturers
or exporters not covered in this review
but covered in the original less-thanfair-value investigation or previous
reviews, the cash-deposit rate will
continue to be the company-specific rate
published for the most recent period; (3)
if the exporter is not a firm covered in

VerDate Mar<15>2010

16:30 Jul 26, 2010

Jkt 220001

this review, a prior review, or the
original investigation but the
manufacturer is, the cash-deposit rate
will be the rate established for the most
recent period for the manufacturer of
the merchandise; (4) the cash-deposit
rate for all other manufacturers or
exporters will continue to be 7.31
percent, the all-others rate established
in Notice of Amended Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Certain Polyester Staple
Fiber From the Republic of Korea and
Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain
Polyester Staple Fiber From the
Republic of Korea and Taiwan, 65 FR
33807 (May 25, 2000). These cashdeposit requirements shall remain in
effect until further notice.
Notifications
This notice serves as a final reminder
to importers of their responsibility
under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a
certificate regarding the reimbursement
of antidumping duties prior to
liquidation of the relevant entries
during this review period. Failure to
comply with this requirement could
result in the Secretary’s presumption
that reimbursement of antidumping
duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of doubled antidumping
duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder
to parties subject to the administrative
protective order (APO) of their
responsibility concerning the
disposition of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely
notification of the destruction of APO
materials or conversion to judicial
protective order is hereby requested.
Failure to comply with the regulations
and the terms of an APO is a
sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing these
results and this notice in accordance
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of
the Act.
Dated: July 19, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen.
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.

Appendix
1. Exchange Rates.
2. Selection of Normal Value.
[FR Doc. 2010–18391 Filed 7–26–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

PO 00000

Frm 00008

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark
Office
[Docket No. PTO–P–2010–0067]

Interim Guidance for Determining
Subject Matter Eligibility for Process
Claims in View of Bilski v. Kappos
United States Patent and

Trademark Office, Commerce.

ACTION: Notice; Request for comments.

AGENCY:

The United States Patent and
Trademark Office (USPTO or Office) has
prepared Interim Guidance for
Determining Subject Matter Eligibility
for Process Claims in view of Bilski v.
Kappos (Interim Bilski Guidance) for its
personnel to use when determining
subject matter eligibility under 35
U.S.C. 101 in view of the recent
decision by the United States Supreme
Court (Supreme Court) in Bilski v.
Kappos, No. 08–964 (June 28, 2010). It
is intended to be used by Office
personnel as a supplement to the
previously issued Interim Examination
Instructions for Evaluating Subject
Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. 101
dated August 24, 2009 (Interim
Instructions) and the memorandum to
the Patent Examining Corps on the
Supreme Court Decision in Bilski v.
Kappos dated June 28, 2010. This
guidance supersedes previous guidance
on subject matter eligibility that
conflicts with the Interim Bilski
Guidance. Any member of the public
may submit written comments on the
Interim Bilski Guidance. The Office is
especially interested in receiving
comments regarding the scope and
extent of the holding in Bilski.
DATES: The Interim Bilski Guidance is
effective July 27, 2010. This guidance
applies to all applications filed before,
on or after the effective date of July 27,
2010.
Comment Deadline Date: To be
ensured of consideration, written
comments must be received on or before
September 27, 2010. No public hearing
will be held.
ADDRESSES: Comments concerning this
Interim Bilski Guidance should be sent
by electronic mail message over the
Internet addressed to
[e-mail] or facsimile
transmitted to (571) 273–0125.
Comments may also be submitted by
mail addressed to: Mail Stop
Comments—Patents, Commissioner for
Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA
22313–1450. Although comments may
be submitted by facsimile or mail, the
Office prefers to receive comments via
the Internet.
SUMMARY:

E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM

27JYN1

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 27, 2010 / Notices
The comments will be available for
public inspection at the Office of the
Commissioner for Patents, located in
Madison East, Tenth Floor, 600 Dulany
Street, Alexandria, Virginia, and will be
available via the USPTO Internet Web
site, (address: http://www.uspto.gov).
Because comments will be available for
public inspection, information that is
not desired to be made public, such as
an address or phone number, should not
be included in the comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Caroline D. Dennison, Legal Advisor,
Office of Patent Legal Administration,
Office of the Associate Commissioner
for Patent Examination Policy, by
telephone at (571) 272–7729, or by mail
addressed to: Mail Stop Comments—
Patents, Commissioner for Patents, P.O.
Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313–1450,
marked to the attention of Caroline D.
Dennison.
The
USPTO has prepared interim guidance
(Interim Bilski Guidance) for its
personnel to use when determining
subject matter eligibility under 35
U.S.C. 101 in view of the recent
decision by the United States Supreme
Court (Supreme Court) in Bilski. It is
intended to be used by Office personnel
as a supplement to the previously
issued Interim Examination Instructions
for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility
Under 35 U.S.C. 101 dated August 24,
2009 (Interim Instructions) and the
memorandum to the Patent Examining
Corps on the Supreme Court Decision in
Bilski v. Kappos dated June 28, 2010.
The Interim Bilski Guidance is based on
the USPTO’s current understanding of
the law and is believed to be fully
consistent with the decision in Bilski,
the binding precedent of the Supreme
Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) and the
Federal Circuit’s predecessor courts.
The USPTO has also posted the Interim
Bilski Guidance on its Internet Web site
(http://www.uspto.gov).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES

Request for Comments
The Office has received and
considered the comments regarding the
Interim Instructions submitted in
response to the Request for Comments
on Interim Examination Instructions for
Evaluating Patent Subject Matter
Eligibility, 74 FR 47780 (Sept. 11, 2009),
1347 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 110 (Oct. 13,
2009). See also Additional Period for
Comments on Interim Examination
Instructions for Evaluating Patent
Subject Matter Eligibility, 74 FR 52184
(Oct. 9, 2009), 1348 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office
42 (Nov. 3, 2009) (extending the

VerDate Mar<15>2010

16:30 Jul 26, 2010

Jkt 220001

comment period until November 9,
2009).
Members of the public are invited to
review the Interim Bilski Guidance
(below) and provide comments. The
Office is particularly interested in
receiving comments in response to the
following questions:
1. What are examples of claims that
do not meet the machine-ortransformation test but nevertheless
remain patent-eligible because they do
not recite an abstract idea?
2. What are examples of claims that
meet the machine-or-transformation test
but nevertheless are not patent-eligible
because they recite an abstract idea?
3. The decision in Bilski suggested
that it might be possible to ‘‘defin[e] a
narrower category or class of patent
applications that claim to instruct how
business should be conducted,’’ such
that the category itself would be
unpatentable as ‘‘an attempt to patent
abstract ideas.’’ Bilski slip op. at 12. Do
any such ‘‘categories’’ exist? If so, how
does the category itself represent an
‘‘attempt to patent abstract ideas?’’
Interim Guidance for Determining
Subject Matter Eligibility for Process
Claims in view of Bilski v. Kappos
(Interim Bilski Guidance)
I. Overview: This Interim Bilski
Guidance is for determining patenteligibility of process claims under 35
U.S.C. 101 in view of the opinion by the
Supreme Court in Bilski v. Kappos, 561
U.S. ___ (2010), which refined the
abstract idea exception to subject matter
that is eligible for patenting. A claim to
an abstract idea is not a patent-eligible
process.
This Interim Bilski Guidance provides
factors to consider in determining
subject matter eligibility of method
claims in view of the abstract idea
exception. Although this guidance
presents a change in existing
examination practice, it is anticipated
that subject matter eligibility
determinations will not increase in
complexity for the large majority of
examiners, who do not routinely
encounter claims that implicate the
abstract idea exception.
Under the principles of compact
prosecution, each claim should be
reviewed for compliance with every
statutory requirement for patentability
in the initial review of the application,
even if one or more claims are found to
be deficient with respect to the patenteligibility requirement of 35 U.S.C. 101.
Thus, Office personnel should state all
non-cumulative reasons and bases for
rejecting claims in the first Office
action.

PO 00000

Frm 00009

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

43923

Section III of this Interim Bilski
Guidance provides guidance on the
abstract idea exception to subject matter
eligibility as set forth in Bilski, and
section IV of this Interim Bilski
Guidance provides guidance on factors
relevant to reviewing method claims for
subject matter eligibility in view of
Bilski. To aid examiners in
implementing this guidance, a summary
sheet of factors which may be useful for
determining subject matter eligibility of
a method claim is provided at the end
of this Interim Bilski Guidance.
Section V of this Interim Bilski
Guidance discusses how to make the
determination of eligibility. To
summarize, in order for the examiner to
make a proper prima facie case of
ineligibility, the examiner will evaluate
the claim as a whole and weigh the
relevant factors set forth in Bilski and
previous Supreme Court precedent and
make a determination of compliance
with the subject matter eligibility prong
of § 101. The Office will then consider
rebuttal arguments and evidence
supporting subject matter eligibility.
II. Summary: The Bilski Court
underscored that the text of § 101 is
expansive, specifying four independent
categories of inventions eligible for
protection, including processes,
machines, manufactures, and
compositions of matter. See slip op. at
4 (‘‘In choosing such expansive terms
* * * modified by the comprehensive
‘any’, Congress plainly contemplated
that the patent laws would be given
wide scope.’’) (quoting Diamond v.
Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 308 (1980)).
The Court also made clear that business
methods are not ‘‘categorically outside
of § 101’s scope,’’ stating that ‘‘a business
method is simply one kind of ‘method’
that is, at least in some circumstances,
eligible for patenting under § 101.’’ Id. at
10–11. Examiners are reminded that
§ 101 is not the sole tool for determining
patentability; where a claim
encompasses an abstract idea, sections
102, 103, and 112 will provide
additional tools for ensuring that the
claim meets the conditions for
patentability. As the Court made clear in
Bilski:
The § 101 patent-eligibility inquiry is only
a threshold test. Even if an invention
qualifies as a process, machine, manufacture,
or composition of matter, in order to receive
the Patent Act’s protection the claimed
invention must also satisfy ‘‘the conditions
and requirements of this title.’’ § 101. Those
requirements include that the invention be
novel, see § 102, nonobvious, see § 103, and
fully and particularly described, see § 112.

Id. at 5.
Therefore, examiners should avoid
focusing on issues of patent-eligibility

E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM

27JYN1

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES

43924

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 27, 2010 / Notices

under § 101 to the detriment of
considering an application for
compliance with the requirements of
§§ 102, 103, and 112, and should avoid
treating an application solely on the
basis of patent-eligibility under § 101
except in the most extreme cases.
III. The Abstract Idea Exception to
Subject Matter Eligibility: There are
limits on the scope of patent-eligibility.
In particular, the Supreme Court has
identified three specific exceptions to
§ 101’s broad patent-eligibility
principles: Laws of nature, physical
phenomena, and abstract ideas. See id.
The Office has been using the socalled ‘‘machine-or-transformation’’ test
used by the Federal Circuit to evaluate
whether a method claim qualifies as a
statutory patent-eligible process. See
Interim Examination Instructions For
Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility
Under 35 U.S.C. 101 dated August 24,
2009 (‘‘2009 Interim Instructions’’). The
Supreme Court stated in Bilski that the
machine-or-transformation test is a
‘‘useful and important clue’’ and
‘‘investigative tool’’ for determining
whether some claimed methods are
statutory processes, but it ‘‘is not the
sole test for deciding whether an
invention is a patent-eligible ‘process.’ ’’
Slip op. at 8. Its primary objection was
to the elevation of the machine-ortransformation test—which it
considered to be ‘‘atextual’’—as the ‘‘sole
test’’ for patent-eligibility. Slip op. at 6–
8, 16. To date, no court, presented with
a subject matter eligibility issue, has
ever ruled that a method claim that
lacked a machine or a transformation
was patent-eligible. However, Bilski
held open the possibility that some
claims that do not meet the machine-ortransformation test might nevertheless
be patent-eligible.
Prior to adoption of the machine-ortransformation test, the Office had used
the ‘‘abstract idea’’ exception in cases
where a claimed ‘‘method’’ did not
sufficiently recite a physical
instantiation. See, e.g., Ex parte Bilski,
No. 2002–2257, slip op. at 46–49
(B.P.A.I. Sept. 26, 2006) (informative),
http://www.uspto.gov/ip/boards/bpai/
decisions/inform/fd022257.pdf.
Following Bilski, such an approach
remains proper. A claim that attempts to
patent an abstract idea is ineligible
subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. See
slip op. at 13 (‘‘[A]ll members of the
Court agree that the patent application
at issue here falls outside of § 101
because it claims an abstract idea.’’). The
abstract idea exception has deep roots in
the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence. See
id. at 5 (citing Le Roy v. Tatham, 55 U.S.
(14 How.) 156, 174–175 (1853)).

VerDate Mar<15>2010

16:30 Jul 26, 2010

Jkt 220001

Bilski reaffirmed Diehr’s holding that
‘‘while an abstract idea, law of nature, or
mathematical formula could not be
patented, ‘an application of a law of
nature or mathematical formula to a
known structure or process may well be
deserving of patent protection.’ ’’ Id. at
14 (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S.
175, 187 (1981)) (emphasis in original).
The recitation of some structure, such as
a machine, or the recitation of some
transformative component will in most
cases limit the claim to such an
application. However, not all such
recitations necessarily save the claim:
‘‘Flook established that limiting an
abstract idea to one field of use or
adding token postsolution components
did not make the concept patentable.’’
Id. at 15. Moreover, the fact that the
steps of a claim might occur in the ‘‘real
world’’ does not necessarily save it from
a section 101 rejection. Thus, the Bilski
claims were said to be drawn to an
‘‘abstract idea’’ despite the fact that they
included steps drawn to initiating
transactions. The ‘‘abstractness’’ is in the
sense that there are no limitations as to
the mechanism for entering into the
transactions.
Consistent with the foregoing, Bilski
holds that the following claim is
abstract:
1. A method for managing the
consumption risk costs of a commodity
sold by a commodity provider at a fixed
price comprising the steps of:
(a) Initiating a series of transactions
between said commodity provider and
consumers of said commodity wherein
said consumers purchase said
commodity at a fixed rate based upon
historical averages, said fixed rate
corresponding to a risk position of said
consumer;
(b) Identifying market participants for
said commodity having a counter-risk
position to said consumers; and
(c) Initiating a series of transactions
between said commodity provider and
said market participants at a second
fixed rate such that said series of market
participant transactions balances the
risk position of said series of consumer
transactions.
Specifically, the Court explains:
The concept of hedging, described in claim
1 and reduced to a mathematical formula in
claim 4, is an unpatentable abstract idea, just
like the algorithms at issue in Benson and
Flook. Allowing petitioners to patent risk
hedging would preempt use of this approach
in all fields, and would effectively grant a
monopoly over an abstract idea.

Slip op. at 15.
Bilski also held that the additional,
narrowing, limitations in the dependent
claims were mere field of use

PO 00000

Frm 00010

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

limitations or insignificant postsolution
components, and that adding these
limitations did not make the claims
patent-eligible. See id. Claims 1–9 in
Bilski are attached as examples of claims
that run afoul of the abstract idea
exception.
The day after deciding Bilski, the
Supreme Court denied certiorari in
Ferguson v. Kappos, U.S. Supreme
Court No. 09–1501, while granting,
vacating, and remanding two other
Federal Circuit section 101 cases. The
denial of certiorari left intact the
rejection of all of Ferguson’s claims.
Although the Federal Circuit had
applied the machine-or-transformation
test to reject Ferguson’s process claims,
the Supreme Court’s disposition of
Ferguson makes it likely that the
Ferguson claims also run afoul of the
abstract idea exception. A representative
Ferguson claim is:
1. A method of marketing a product,
comprising:
Developing a shared marketing force, said
shared marketing force including at least
marketing channels, which enable marketing
a number of related products;
Using said shared marketing force to
market a plurality of different products that
are made by a plurality of different
autonomous producing company [sic], so that
different autonomous companies, having
different ownerships, respectively produce
said related products;
Obtaining a share of total profits from each
of said plurality of different autonomous
producing companies in return for said
using; and
Obtaining an exclusive right to market each
of said plurality of products in return for said
using.

The following guidance presents
factors that are to be considered when
evaluating patent-eligibility of method
claims. The factors include inquiries
from the machine-or-transformation test,
which remains a useful investigative
tool, and inquiries gleaned from
Supreme Court precedent. While the
Supreme Court in Bilski did not set forth
detailed guidance, there are many
factors to be considered when
determining whether there is sufficient
evidence to support a determination
that a method claim is directed to an
abstract idea. The following factors are
intended to be useful examples and are
not intended to be exclusive or limiting.
It is recognized that new factors may be
developed, particularly for emerging
technologies. It is anticipated that the
factors will be modified and changed to
take into account developments in
precedential case law and to
accommodate prosecution issues that
may arise in implementing this new
practice.

E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM

27JYN1

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 27, 2010 / Notices

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES

Additional guidance in the form of
expanded explanation and specific
examples will follow in due course.
IV. Evaluating Method Claims for
Eligibility: Where the claim is written in
the form of a method and is potentially
a patentable process, as defined in 35
U.S.C. 100(b), the claim is patenteligible so long as it is not disqualified
as one of the exceptions to § 101’s broad
patent-eligibility principles; i.e., laws of
nature, physical phenomena, and
abstract ideas.
Taking into account the following
factors, the examiner should determine
whether the claimed invention, viewed
as a whole, is disqualified as being a
claim to an abstract idea. Relevant
factors—both those in favor of patenteligibility and those against such a
finding—should be weighed in making
the determination. Factors that weigh in
favor of patent-eligibility satisfy the
criteria of the machine-ortransformation test or provide evidence
that the abstract idea has been
practically applied. Factors that weigh
against patent-eligibility neither satisfy
the criteria of the machine-ortransformation test nor provide
evidence that the abstract idea has been
practically applied. Each case will
present different factors, and it is likely
that only some of the factors will be
present in each application. It would be
improper to make a conclusion based on
one factor while ignoring other factors.
This additional guidance, which
builds upon the 2009 Interim
Instructions, is a factor-based inquiry.
Although the following approach is a
change, it is anticipated that subject
matter eligibility determinations will
not increase in complexity, particularly
for examiners who do not routinely
encounter claims that implicate the
abstract idea exception. Examiners will
recognize that the machine-ortransformation test set forth in Section
II(B) of the 2009 Interim Instructions,
although not the sole test for evaluating
the subject matter eligibility of a method
claim, is still pertinent in making
determinations pursuant to the factors
listed below. Examiners are referred to
the summary sheet of factors provided
at the end of this Interim Bilski
Guidance which may be useful in
determining subject matter eligibility of
a method claim.
Factors To Be Considered in an Abstract
Idea Determination of a Method Claim
A. Whether the method involves or is
executed by a particular machine or
apparatus. If so, the claims are less
likely to be drawn to an abstract idea;
if not, they are more likely to be so
drawn. Where a machine or apparatus is

VerDate Mar<15>2010

16:30 Jul 26, 2010

Jkt 220001

recited or inherent in a patent claim, the
following factors are relevant:
(1) The particularity or generality of
the elements of the machine or
apparatus; i.e., the degree to which the
machine in the claim can be specifically
identified (not any and all machines).
Incorporation of a particular machine or
apparatus into the claimed method steps
weighs toward eligibility.
(2) Whether the machine or apparatus
implements the steps of the method.
Integral use of a machine or apparatus
to achieve performance of the method
weighs toward eligibility, as compared
to where the machine or apparatus is
merely an object on which the method
operates, which weighs against
eligibility.
(3) Whether its involvement is
extrasolution activity or a field-of-use,
i.e., the extent to which (or how) the
machine or apparatus imposes
meaningful limits on the execution of
the claimed method steps. Use of a
machine or apparatus that contributes
only nominally or insignificantly to the
execution of the claimed method (e.g.,
in a data gathering step or in a field-ofuse limitation) would weigh against
eligibility.
B. Whether performance of the
claimed method results in or otherwise
involves a transformation of a particular
article. If such a transformation exists,
the claims are less likely to be drawn to
an abstract idea; if not, they are more
likely to be so drawn. Where a
transformation occurs, the following
factors are relevant:
(1) The particularity or generality of
the transformation. A more particular
transformation would weigh in favor of
eligibility.
(2) The degree to which the recited
article is particular; i.e., can be
specifically identified (not any and all
articles). A transformation applied to a
generically recited article would weigh
against eligibility.
(3) The nature of the transformation in
terms of the type or extent of change in
state or thing, for instance by having a
different function or use, which would
weigh toward eligibility, compared to
merely having a different location,
which would weigh against eligibility.
(4) The nature of the article
transformed, i.e., whether it is an object
or substance, weighing toward
eligibility, compared to a concept such
as a contractual obligation or mental
judgment, which would weigh against
eligibility.
(5) Whether its involvement is
extrasolution activity or a field-of-use,
i.e., the extent to which (or how) the
transformation imposes meaningful
limits on the execution of the claimed

PO 00000

Frm 00011

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

43925

method steps. A transformation that
contributes only nominally or
insignificantly to the execution of the
claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering
step or in a field-of-use limitation)
would weigh against eligibility.
C. Whether performance of the
claimed method involves an application
of a law of nature, even in the absence
of a particular machine, apparatus, or
transformation. If such an application
exists, the claims are less likely to be
drawn to an abstract idea; if not, they
are more likely to be so drawn. Where
such an application is present, the
following factors are relevant:
(1) The particularity or generality of
the application. Application of a law of
nature having broad applicability across
many fields of endeavor weighs against
eligibility, such as where the claim
generically recites an effect of the law of
nature or claims every mode of
accomplishing that effect, such that the
claim would monopolize a natural force
or patent a scientific fact. (As an
example, claiming ‘‘the use of
electromagnetism for transmitting
signals at a distance.’’)
(2) Whether the claimed method
recites an application of a law of nature
solely involving subjective
determinations; e.g., ways to think about
the law of nature. Application of a law
of nature to a particular way of thinking
about, or reacting to, a law of nature
would weigh against eligibility.
(3) Whether its involvement is
extrasolution activity or a field-of-use,
i.e., the extent to which (or how) the
application imposes meaningful limits
on the execution of the claimed method
steps. An application of the law of
nature that contributes only nominally
or insignificantly to the execution of the
claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering
step or in a field-of-use limitation)
would weigh against eligibility.
D. Whether a general concept (which
could also be recognized in such terms
as a principle, theory, plan or scheme)
is involved in executing the steps of the
method. The presence of such a general
concept can be a clue that the claim is
drawn to an abstract idea. Where a
general concept is present, the following
factors are relevant:
(1) The extent to which use of the
concept, as expressed in the method,
would preempt its use in other fields;
i.e., that the claim would effectively
grant a monopoly over the concept.
(2) The extent to which the claim is
so abstract and sweeping as to cover
both known and unknown uses of the
concept, and be performed through any
existing or future-devised machinery, or
even without any apparatus.

E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM

27JYN1

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES

43926

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 27, 2010 / Notices

(3) The extent to which the claim
would effectively cover all possible
solutions to a particular problem; i.e.,
that the claim is a statement of the
problem versus a description of a
particular solution to the problem.
(4) Whether the concept is
disembodied or whether it is
instantiated; i.e., implemented, in some
tangible way. Note, however, that
limiting an abstract idea to one field of
use or adding token postsolution
components does not make the concept
patentable. A concept that is wellinstantiated weighs in favor of
eligibility.
(5) The mechanism(s) by which the
steps are implemented; e.g., whether the
performance of the process is observable
and verifiable rather than subjective or
imperceptible. Steps that are observable
and verifiable weigh in favor of
eligibility.
(6) Examples of general concepts
include, but are not limited to:
• Basic economic practices or
theories (e.g., hedging, insurance,
financial transactions, marketing);
• Basic legal theories (e.g., contracts,
dispute resolution, rules of law);
• Mathematical concepts (e.g.,
algorithms, spatial relationships,
geometry);
• Mental activity (e.g., forming a
judgment, observation, evaluation, or
opinion);
• Interpersonal interactions or
relationships (e.g., conversing, dating);
• Teaching concepts (e.g.,
memorization, repetition);
• Human behavior (e.g., exercising,
wearing clothing, following rules or
instructions);
• Instructing ‘‘how business should
be conducted,’’ Bilski, slip op. at 12.
V. Making the Determination of
Eligibility: Each of the factors relevant to
the particular patent application should
be weighed to determine whether the
method is claiming an abstract idea by
covering a general concept, or
combination of concepts, or whether the
method is limited to a particular
practical application of the concept. The
presence or absence of a single factor
will not be determinative as the relevant
factors need to be considered and
weighed to make a proper determination
as to whether the claim as a whole is
drawn to an abstract idea such that the
claim would effectively grant a
monopoly over an abstract idea and be
ineligible for patent protection.
If the factors indicate that the method
claim is not merely covering an abstract
idea, the claim is eligible for patent
protection under § 101 and must be
further evaluated for patentability under
all of the statutory requirements,

VerDate Mar<15>2010

16:30 Jul 26, 2010

Jkt 220001

including utility and double patenting
(§ 101); novelty (§ 102); non-obviousness
(§ 103); and definiteness and adequate
description, enablement, and best mode
(§ 112). Section 101 is merely a coarse
filter and thus a determination of
eligibility under § 101 is only a
threshold question for patentability.
Sections 102, 103, and 112 are typically
the primary tools for evaluating
patentability unless the claim is truly
abstract, see, e.g., Bilski, slip op. at 12
(‘‘[S]ome business method patents raise
special problems in terms of vagueness
and suspect validity.’’).
If the factors indicate that the method
claim is attempting to cover an abstract
idea, the examiner will reject the claim
under § 101, providing clear rationale
supporting the determination that an
abstract idea has been claimed, such
that the examiner establishes a prima
facie case of patent-ineligibility. The
conclusion made by the examiner must
be based on the evidence as a whole. In
making a rejection or if presenting
reasons for allowance when appropriate,
the examiner should specifically point
out the factors that are relied upon in
making the determination. If a claim is
rejected under § 101 on the basis that it
is drawn to an abstract idea, the
applicant then has the opportunity to
explain why the claimed method is not
drawn to an abstract idea. Specifically
identifying the factors used in the
analysis will allow the applicant to
make specific arguments in response to
the rejection if the applicant believes
that the conclusion that the claim is
directed to an abstract idea is in error.
The Interim Bilski Guidance is for
examination guidance in light of the
recent decision in Bilski. This guidance
does not constitute substantive rule
making and hence does not have the
force and effect of law. Rejections will
continue to be based upon the
substantive law, and it is these
rejections that are appealable.
Consequently, any perceived failure by
Office personnel to follow this guidance
is neither appealable nor petitionable.
The Interim Bilski Guidance merely
updates USPTO examination practice
for consistency with the USPTO’s
current understanding of the case law
regarding patent subject matter
eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 in light
of Bilski. Therefore, the Interim Bilski
Guidance relates only to interpretative
rules, general statements of policy, or
rules of agency organization, procedure,
or practice. The USPTO is providing
this opportunity for public comment
because the USPTO desires the benefit
of public comment on the Interim Bilski
Guidance; however, notice and an
opportunity for public comment are not

PO 00000

Frm 00012

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

required under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) or any
other law. See Cooper Techs. Co. v.
Dudas, 536 F.3d 1330, 1336–37, 87
U.S.P.Q.2d 1705, 1710 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
(stating that 5 U.S.C. 553, and thus 35
U.S.C. 2(b)(2)(B), does not require notice
and comment rule making for
‘‘‘interpretative rules, general statements
of policy, or rules of agency
organization, procedure, or practice.’’’
(quoting 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A))). Persons
submitting written comments should
note that the USPTO may not provide a
‘‘comment and response’’ analysis of
such comments as notice and an
opportunity for public comment are not
required under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) or any
other law.
Dated: July 4, 2010.
David J. Kappos,
Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual
Property and Director of the United States
Patent and Trademark Office.
Bilski Claims
1. A method for managing the consumption
risk costs of a commodity sold by a
commodity provider at a fixed price
comprising the steps of:
(a) Initiating a series of transactions
between said commodity provider and
consumers of said commodity wherein said
consumers purchase said commodity at a
fixed rate based upon historical averages,
said fixed rate corresponding to a risk
position of said consumers;
(b) Identifying market participants for said
commodity having a counter-risk position to
said consumers; and
(c) Initiating a series of transactions
between said commodity provider and said
market participants at a second fixed rate
such that said series of market participant
transactions balances the risk position of said
series of consumer transactions.
2. The method of claim 1 wherein said
commodity is energy and said market
participants are transmission distributors.
3. The method of claim 2 wherein said
consumption risk is a weather-related price
risk.
4. The method of claim 3 wherein the fixed
price for the consumer transaction is
determined by the relationship:
Fixed Bill Price = Fi + [(Ci + Ti+ LDi) ×
(a + +E(Wi)]
wherein,

Fi = fixed costs in period i;

Ci = variable costs in period i;

Ti = variable long distance transportation

costs in period i;
LDi = variable local delivery costs in
period i;
E(Wi) = estimated location-specific weather
indicator in period i; and a and b are
constants.
5. The method of claim 4 wherein said
location-specific weather indicator is at least
one of heating degree days and cooling
degree days.
6. The method of claim 4 wherein said
energy provider seeks a swap receipt to cover
the marginal weather-driven cost.

E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM

27JYN1

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 27, 2010 / Notices

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES

7. The method of claim 4 wherein the
energy price is determined by the steps of:
(a) Evaluating the usage and all costs for a
prospective transaction;
(b) Performing a Monte Carlo simulation
across all transactions at all locations for a
predetermined plurality of years of weather
patterns and establishing the payoffs from
each transaction under each historical
weather pattern;
(c) Assuming that the summed payoffs are
normally distributed;
(d) Performing one-tail tests to determine
the marginal likelihood of losing money on
the deal and the marginal likelihood of
retaining at least the design margin included
in the initial evaluation of the fixed bill
price; and
(e) Adjusting the margin of the fixed bill
price if the transaction as initially priced
leads to a reduced expected margin or
increases the likelihood of a loss until the
expected portfolio margin and the likelihood
of portfolio loss is acceptable.
8. The method of claim 4 wherein a cap on
the weather-influenced pricing is established
by the steps of:
(a) Evaluating the usage equation and all
costs for a prospective transaction;
(b) Performing a Monte Carlo simulation
across all transactions at all locations for a
predetermined plurality of years of weather
patterns and establishing the payoffs from
each transaction under each historical
weather pattern assuming that the price in
the transaction being priced floats down
when the weather is below normal;
(c) Assuming that the summed payoffs are
normally distributed;
(d) Performing one-tail tests to determine
the marginal likelihood of losing money on
the transaction and the marginal likelihood
of retaining at least the design margin
included in the initial evaluation of the fixed
price bill;
(e) Continuing to reprice the margin in the
transaction until the expected portfolio
margin and likelihood of portfolio loss is
acceptable; and
(f) Establishing the margin as a call option
on weather at a predetermined location.
9. The method of claim 1 wherein said
commodity provider seeks a swap receipt to
cover the price risk of the consumer
transaction.
101 Method Eligibility Quick Reference
Sheet
The factors below should be considered
when analyzing the claim as a whole to
evaluate whether a method claim is directed
to an abstract idea. However, not every factor
will be relevant to every claim and, as such,
need not be considered in every analysis.
When it is determined that the claim is
patent-eligible, the analysis may be
concluded. In those instances where patenteligibility cannot easily be identified, every
relevant factor should be carefully weighed
before making a conclusion. Additionally, no
factor is conclusive by itself, and the weight
accorded each factor will vary based upon
the facts of the application. These factors are
not intended to be exclusive or exhaustive as
there may be more pertinent factors
depending on the particular technology of

VerDate Mar<15>2010

16:30 Jul 26, 2010

Jkt 220001

43927

the claim. For assistance in applying these
factors, please consult the accompanying
‘‘Interim Guidance’’ memo and TC
management.

Æ The general concept is disembodied.
Æ The mechanism(s) by which the steps
are implemented is subjective or
imperceptible.

Factors Weighing Toward Eligibility
• Recitation of a machine or
transformation (either express or inherent).
Æ Machine or transformation is particular.
Æ Machine or transformation meaningfully
limits the execution of the steps.
Æ Machine implements the claimed steps.
Æ The article being transformed is
particular.
Æ The article undergoes a change in state
or thing (e.g., objectively different function or
use).
Æ The article being transformed is an
object or substance.
• The claim is directed toward applying a
law of nature.
Æ Law of nature is practically applied.
Æ The application of the law of nature
meaningfully limits the execution of the
steps.
• The claim is more than a mere statement
of a concept.
Æ The claim describes a particular solution
to a problem to be solved.
Æ The claim implements a concept in some
tangible way.
Æ The performance of the steps is
observable and verifiable.

Notes
(1) Examples of general concepts include,
but are not limited, to:
• Basic economic practices or theories
(e.g., hedging, insurance, financial
transactions, marketing);
• Basic legal theories (e.g., contracts,
dispute resolution, rules of law);
• Mathematical concepts (e.g., algorithms,
spatial relationships, geometry);
• Mental activity (e.g., forming a judgment,
observation, evaluation, or opinion);
• Interpersonal interactions or
relationships (e.g., conversing, dating);
• Teaching concepts (e.g., memorization,
repetition);
• Human behavior (e.g., exercising,
wearing clothing, following rules or
instructions);
• Instructing ‘‘how business should be
conducted.’’
(2) For a detailed explanation of the terms
machine, transformation, article, particular,
extrasolution activity, and field-of-use, please
refer to the Interim Patent Subject Matter
Eligibility Examination Instructions of
August 24, 2009.
(3) When making a subject matter
eligibility determination, the relevant factors
should be weighed with respect to the claim
as a whole to evaluate whether the claim is
patent-eligible or whether the abstract idea
exception renders the claim ineligible. When
it is determined that the claim is patenteligible, the analysis may be concluded. In
those instances where patent-eligibility
cannot be easily identified, every relevant
factor should be carefully weighed before
making a conclusion. Not every factor will be
relevant to every claim. While no factor is
conclusive by itself, the weight accorded
each factor will vary based upon the facts of
the application. These factors are not
intended to be exclusive or exhaustive as
there may be more pertinent factors
depending on the particular technology of
the claim.
(4) Sample Form Paragraphs:
a. Based upon consideration of all of the
relevant factors with respect to the claim as
a whole, claim(s) [1] held to claim an abstract
idea, and is therefore rejected as ineligible
subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. The
rationale for this finding is explained below:
[2] 1. In bracket 2, identify the decisive
factors weighing against patent-eligibility,
and explain the manner in which these
factors support a conclusion of ineligibility.
The explanation needs to be sufficient to
establish a prima facie case of ineligibility
under 35 U.S.C. 101.
b. Dependent claim(s) [1] when analyzed as
a whole are held to be ineligible subject
matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101
because the additional recited limitation(s)
fail(s) to establish that the claim is not
directed to an abstract idea, as detailed
below: [2] 1. In bracket 2, provide an
explanation as to why the claim is directed
to an abstract idea; for instance, that the
additional limitations are no more than a

Factors Weighing Against Eligibility
• No recitation of a machine or
transformation (either express or inherent).
• Insufficient recitation of a machine or
transformation.
Æ Involvement of machine, or
transformation, with the steps is merely
nominally, insignificantly, or tangentially
related to the performance of the steps, e.g.,
data gathering, or merely recites a field in
which the method is intended to be applied.
Æ Machine is generically recited such that
it covers any machine capable of performing
the claimed step(s).
Æ Machine is merely an object on which
the method operates.
Æ Transformation involves only a change
in position or location of article.
Æ ‘‘Article’’ is merely a general concept (see
notes below).
• The claim is not directed to an
application of a law of nature.
Æ The claim would monopolize a natural
force or patent a scientific fact; e.g., by
claiming every mode of producing an effect
of that law of nature.
Æ Law of nature is applied in a merely
subjective determination.
Æ Law of nature is merely nominally,
insignificantly, or tangentially related to the
performance of the steps.
• The claim is a mere statement of a
general concept (see notes below for
examples).
Æ Use of the concept, as expressed in the
method, would effectively grant a monopoly
over the concept.
Æ Both known and unknown uses of the
concept are covered, and can be performed
through any existing or future-devised
machinery, or even without any apparatus.
Æ The claim only states a problem to be
solved.

PO 00000

Frm 00013

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM

27JYN1

43928

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 27, 2010 / Notices

field of use or merely involve insignificant
extrasolution activity; e.g., data gathering.
The explanation needs to be sufficient to
establish a prima facie case of ineligibility
under 35 U.S.C. 101.

Atlantic bluefin tuna, shark, and
swordfish fisheries, as well as options
for vessel monitoring systems and
recreational reporting.

[FR Doc. 2010–18424 Filed 7–26–10; 8:45 am]

Special Accommodations
This meeting is physically accessible
to people with disabilities. Requests for
sign language interpretation or other
auxiliary aids should be directed to
Brian Parker at [phone] at least
7 days prior to the meeting.

BILLING CODE 3510–16–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration

Dated: July 22, 2010.
Carrie Selberg,
Acting Director, Office of Sustainable
Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

RIN 0648–XX81

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species;
Meeting of the Atlantic Highly
Migratory Species Advisory Panel

[FR Doc. 2010–18393 Filed 7–26–10; 8:45 am]

National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of public meeting.
AGENCY:

NMFS will hold a 3–day
Atlantic Highly Migratory Species
(HMS) Advisory Panel (AP) meeting in
September 2010. The intent of the
meeting is to consider options for the
conservation and management of
Atlantic HMS. The meeting is open to
the public.
DATES: The AP meeting will be held on
September 21, 2010 through September
23, 2010.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in
Silver Spring, MD 20910.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Brian Parker or Margo Schulze-Haugen
at 301-713-2347.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et
seq., as amended by the Sustainable
Fisheries Act, Public Law 104 297,
provided for the establishment of an AP
to assist in the collection and evaluation
of information relevant to the
development of any Fishery
Management Plan (FMP) or FMP
amendment for HMS. NMFS consults
with and considers the comments and
views of AP members when preparing
and implementing FMPs or FMP
amendments for Atlantic tunas,
swordfish, billfish, and sharks.
The AP has previously consulted with
NMFS on: Amendment 1 to the Billfish
FMP (April 1999), the HMS FMP (April
1999), Amendment 1 to the HMS FMP
(December 2003), the Consolidated HMS
FMP (October 2006), and Amendments
1, 2, and 3 to the Consolidated HMS
FMP (April and October 2008, February
and September 2009, and May 2010). At
the September 2010 AP meeting, NMFS
plans to discuss the current
management issues related to the

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES

SUMMARY:

VerDate Mar<15>2010

16:30 Jul 26, 2010

Jkt 220001

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
RIN 0648–XX80

New England Fishery Management
Council; Public Meeting
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce
ACTION: Notice; public meeting.
AGENCY:

The New England Fishery
Management Council (Council) is
scheduling a public meeting of its
Habitat/MPA/Ecosystem Advisory Panel
in August, 2010 to consider actions
affecting New England fisheries in the
exclusive economic zone (EEZ).
Recommendations from this group will
be brought to the full Council for formal
consideration and action, if appropriate.
DATES: This meeting will be held on
Thursday, August 12, 2010 at 9:30 a.m.
ADDRESSES: This meeting will be held at
the Four Points Sheraton, 407 Squire
Road, Revere, MA 02151; telephone:
(781) 284–7200; fax: [phone].
Council address: New England
Fishery Management Council, 50 Water
Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul
J. Howard, Executive Director, New
England Fishery Management Council;
telephone: [phone].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Habitat Advisory Panel will meet to
discuss management options to
minimize the adverse effects of fishing
on Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) across
all Council FMPs. These management
options are being developed as part of
Phase 2 of Essential Fish Habitat
Omnibus Amendment 2. Broadly
speaking, the purpose of Phase 2 is to
SUMMARY:

PO 00000

Frm 00014

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

ensure that the Council’s management
plans are minimizing adverse impacts of
various Council-managed fisheries on
EFH to the extent practicable, and that
EFH-related management measures are
integrated and optimized across all
FMPs. Recommendations from the
Advisory Panel will be considered by
the Habitat Committee at their meeting
on August 26, 2010. As necessary,
representatives from the Habitat Plan
Development Team (PDT) will present
recent PDT analyses and
recommendations to inform the
Advisory Panel’s discussion. If time
permits, the panel may discuss other
issues.
Although non-emergency issues not
contained in this agenda may come
before this group for discussion, those
issues may not be the subject of formal
action during this meeting. Action will
be restricted to those issues specifically
listed in this notice and any issues
arising after publication of this notice
that require emergency action under
section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens
Act, provided the public has been
notified of the Council’s intent to take
final action to address the emergency.
Special Accommodations
This meeting is physically accessible
to people with disabilities. Requests for
sign language interpretation or other
auxiliary aids should be directed to Paul
J. Howard, Executive Director, at (978)
465–0492, at least 5 days prior to the
meeting date.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: July 22, 2010.
Tracey L. Thompson,
Acting Director, Office of Sustainable
Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2010–18328 Filed 7–26–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–S

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
RIN 0648–XX79

New England Fishery Management
Council; Public Meeting
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; public meeting.
AGENCY:

The New England Fishery
Management Council (Council) is
scheduling a public meeting of its Red
Crab Committee in August, 2010 to
consider actions affecting New England

SUMMARY:

E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM

27JYN1