<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Obvious Electronification</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thefireofgenius.com/2007/09/22/obvious-electronification/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thefireofgenius.com/2007/09/22/obvious-electronification/</link>
	<description>Academic commentary about patent law, i.p. law, creativity, and more</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 06 Oct 2008 19:50:43 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Michael Risch</title>
		<link>http://www.thefireofgenius.com/2007/09/22/obvious-electronification/#comment-84514</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael Risch</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 23 Sep 2007 12:48:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thefireofgenius.com/2007/09/22/obvious-electronification/#comment-84514</guid>
		<description>For the record, in my pre-Comiskey draft of an article about patentable subject matter, I say: "Tax methods may even be automated, but the fact of automation alone is not patentable unless the means for automation is novel and non-obvious." (Citing Dann).  I guess I can add a new cite!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For the record, in my pre-Comiskey draft of an article about patentable subject matter, I say: &#8220;Tax methods may even be automated, but the fact of automation alone is not patentable unless the means for automation is novel and non-obvious.&#8221; (Citing Dann).  I guess I can add a new cite!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
