Response to IN RE: BILSKI

As the inventor of Medical Onshoring, I have been frequently asked about the impact of the Bilski decision.

My answer: upon information, research and belief, I believe my Medical Onshoring patent application will survive all challenges. For the following reasons:

1. Ultimate defense -- never proposed before, according to the patent search. No prior art. Novel, non-obvious, and useful. Builds new services in medical-surgical field and health care. Transforms formerly unconnected parts into a practical use (med-surg services).

2. My Medical Onshoring patent application was filed as an SBE (small business entity). U.S. Patent Office (USPTO) is required by law to do its utmost to ensure that SBEs get their patent applications approved, including writing assistance and filing assistance.

3. Per new USPTO rules (August 2009) about Bilski -- my patent application has a specific set of machine parts (e.g., I.T. equipment, med-surg equipment).

4. Per new USPTO rules (August 2009) -- my patent application has specific purposes (i.e., med-surg services), meaningful limits (health care), and all methods are directed at the target process (health care) that is meaningful.


(c) 2010, C.A. Chien. All rights reserved