From: Sinai Yarus [e-mail address redacted] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 8:05 AM To: myriad-mayo_2014 Subject: Comments on recently issued section 101 subject matter eligibility guidelines The examples presented in the guidelines seem to cause more confusion than clarity. The guidelines themselves seem to apply narrowly written judicial edicts in an overly broad sense. For Example, The Supreme court (in Myriad indicated that "we hold that a naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated,". However, the court also acknowledged that: The rule against patents on naturally occurring things is not without limits, however,for “all inventions at some level embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas,” and “too broad an interpretation of this exclusionary principle could eviscerate patent law.” The guidlines do not appear to provide clear and meaningful limits on hoe to implement the judicial exceptions to section 101 subject matter eligibility. In fact, the guidelines appear to conflate evaluation of the section 101 eligibility test with evaluation of novelty and non-obviousness are required by sections 102 and 103 respectively. Dr. S.Yarus Patent Agent (USPTO) [e-mail address redacted] WWW.IPAttitude.com Phone: +972-54-55-468-53 Mailing address: POB 28 Tekoa; 90908 ISRAEL