prompt_front: Now, answer the following question based on the text below, only give me the answer and do not output any other words.

Question: Who was Brooksley Elizabeth's first husband?

Read the following text and answer briefly.

Context 1: Brooksley Elizabeth Born (born August 27, 1940) is an American attorney and former public official who, from August 26, 1996, to June 1, 1999, was chair of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the federal agency which oversees the U S  futures and commodity options markets  During her tenure on the CFTC, Born lobbied Congress and the President to give the CFTC oversight of off-exchange markets for derivatives, in addition to its role with respect to exchange-traded derivatives, but her warnings were ignored or dismissed, and her calls for reform resisted by other regulators <ref name="nytimes">Goodman, Peter S  The Reckoning - Taking Hard New Look at a Greenspan Legacy, The New York Times, October 9, 2008 </ref> Born resigned as chairperson on June 1, 1999, shortly after Congress passed legislation prohibiting her agency from regulating derivatives 

In 2009, Born received the John F  Kennedy Profiles in Courage Award, along with Sheila Bair of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, in recognition of the "political courage she demonstrated in sounding early warnings about conditions that contributed" to the 2007-08 financial crisis 

Early life and education
Born graduated from Abraham Lincoln High School (San Francisco, California) at the age of 16  She then attended Stanford University, where she majored in English and was graduated with the class of 1961   She initially wanted to become a doctor, but a guidance counsellor at Stanford advised her against medicine, so she majored in English literature instead 

She then attended Stanford Law School, one of only seven women in her class   She was the first female student ever to be named president of the Stanford Law Review  She received the "Outstanding Senior" award and graduated as valedictorian of the class of 1964 

Legal career
Immediately after law school Born was selected as a law clerk to judge Henry Edgerton of the U S  Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit  It was during this time that she met her first husband, Jacob C  Landau, who was a journalist covering the Federal courts at the time  Following her clerkship, she became an associate at the Washington, D C -based international law firm of Arnold & Porter  Born was attracted to Arnold & Porter because it was one of the few major law firms to have a woman partner at that time, Carolyn Agger, who was the head of the tax practice  Born took a two-year leave of absence from Arnold & Porter to accompany her first husband to Boston, where he had received a fellowship  During that time she worked as a research assistant to law professor Alan Dershowitz 

Born's early career at Arnold & Porter focused on international trade law, in which she represented a number of Swiss industries and the government of Switzerland  She developed a practice representing clients in numerous complex litigation and arbitration cases involving financial market transactions  Among her high-profile cases was the matter of the Hunt Brothers attempt to corner the market in silver in the 1970s  She made partner at Arnold & Porter, after moving to a three-day schedule to help raise her second child, and eventually rose to be the head of the firm's derivatives practice 

Born was among the first female attorneys to systematically address inequities regarding how the laws treated women  Born and another female lawyer, Marna Tucker, taught what is considered to have been the first "Women and the Law" course at Catholic University’s Columbus School of Law  The class exclusively concerned prejudicial treatment of women under the laws of the United States, past and present   Born and Tucker were surprised to discover that there was no textbook on the issue at the time   Born is also one of the co-founders of the National Women's Law Center  Born also helped rewrite the American Bar Association rules to make it possible for more women and minorities to sit on federal bench 

During her long legal career, and into her retirement, Born did much pro bono and other types of volunteer work  She was active in the American Bar Association, the largest professional organization of lawyers in the United States   Initially Born was named a member of the governing council of the ABA's Individual Rights Section, eventually becoming chairperson   Born and Tucker founded the ABA Women's Caucus, the first organization of female lawyers in the ABA   She held several other senior positions in the ABA, including being named the first woman member of the ABA's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary   As a member of the Judiciary Committee, Born provided testimony and opinion on persons nominated for federal judgeships  In 1980 she was named chair of the committee   As chair of the committee, Born was invited to address the U S  Congress regarding the nomination of Judge Sandra Day O'Connor to the U S  Supreme Court 

In 1993, Born's name was floated as a possible candidate for Attorney General of the United States, but Janet Reno was nominated 

In July 2009, Nancy Pelosi appointed Brooksley Born as a commissioner to the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC) 

Born and the OTC derivatives market
Born was appointed to the CFTC on April 15, 1994, by President Bill Clinton  Due to litigation against Bankers Trust Company by Procter and Gamble and other corporate clients, Born and her team at the CFTC sought comments on the regulation of over-the-counter derivatives, a first step in the process of writing CFTC regulations to supplement the existing regulations of the Federal Reserve System,  the Options Clearing Corporation, and the National Association of Insurance Commissioners  Born was particularly concerned about swaps, financial instruments that are traded over the counter between banks, insurance companies or other funds or companies, and thus have no transparency except to the two counterparties and the counterparties' regulators, if any   CFTC regulation was strenuously opposed by Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, and by Treasury Secretaries Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers  On May 7, 1998, former SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt joined Rubin and Greenspan in objecting to the issuance of the CFTC's concept release  Their response dismissed Born's analysis and focused on the hypothetical possibility that CFTC regulation of swaps and other OTC derivative instruments could create a "legal uncertainty" regarding such financial instruments,  hypothetically reducing the value of the instruments  They argued that the imposition of regulatory costs would "stifle financial innovation" and encourage financial capital to transfer its  transactions offshore  The disagreement between Born and the Executive Office's top economic policy advisors has been described not only as a classic Washington turf war, but also a war of ideologies,  insofar as it is possible to argue that Born's actions were consistent with Keynesian and neoclassical economics while Greenspan, Rubin, Levitt, and Summers consistently espoused neoliberal, and neoconservative policies 

In 1998, a trillion-dollar hedge fund called Long Term Capital Management (LTCM) was near collapse   Using mathematical models to calculate debt risk, LTCM used derivatives to leverage $5 billion into more than $1 trillion, doing business with fifteen of Wall Street's largest financial institutions   The derivative transactions were not regulated, nor were investors able to evaluate LTCM's exposures   Born stated, "I thought that LTCM was exactly what I had been worried about"   In the last weekend of September 1998, the President's working group was told that the entire American economy hung in the balance   After intervention by the Federal Reserve, the crisis was averted   In congressional hearings into the crisis, Greenspan acknowledged that language had been introduced into an agriculture bill that would prevent CFTC from regulating the derivatives which were at the center of the crisis that threatened the US economy   U S  Representative Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) asked "How many more failures do you think we'd have to have before some regulation in this area might be appropriate?"  In response, Greenspan brushed aside the substance of Born's warnings with the simple assertion that "the degree of supervision of regulation of the over-the-counter derivatives market is quite adequate to maintain a degree of stability in the system"  Born's warning was that there wasn't any regulation of them   Born's chief of staff, Michael Greenberger summed up Greenspan's position this way: "Greenspan didn't believe that fraud was something that needed to be enforced, and he assumed she probably did  And of course, she did "  Under heavy pressure from the financial lobby, legislation prohibiting regulation of derivatives by Born's agency was passed by the Congress   Born resigned on June 1, 1999 

The derivatives market continued to grow yearly throughout both terms of George W  Bush's administration  On September 15, 2008, the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers forced a broad recognition of a financial crisis in both the US and world capital markets   As Lehman Brothers' failure temporarily reduced financial capital's confidence, a number of newspaper articles and television programs suggested that the failure's possible causes included the conflict between the CFTC and the other regulators Faiola, Anthony, Nakashima, Ellen and Drew, Jill  The Crash: Risk and Regulation - What Went Wrong, The Washington Post, October 15, 2008 

Born declined to publicly comment on the unfolding 2008 crisis until March 2009, when she said: "The market grew so enormously, with so little oversight and regulation, that it made the financial crisis much deeper and more pervasive than it otherwise would have been " She also lamented the influence of Wall Street lobbyists on the process and the refusal of regulators to discuss even modest reforms 

An October 2009 Frontline documentary titled "The Warning"  described Born's thwarted efforts to regulate and bring transparency to the derivatives market, and the continuing opposition thereto  The program concluded with an excerpted interview with Born sounding another warning: "I think we will have continuing danger from these markets and that we will have repeats of the financial crisis -- may differ in details but there will be significant financial downturns and disasters attributed to this regulatory gap, over and over, until we learn from experience "

In 2009 Born, along with Sheila Bair of the FDIC, was awarded the John F  Kennedy Profiles in Courage Award in recognition of the "political courage she demonstrated in sounding early warnings about conditions that contributed" to the 2007-08 financial crisis   According to Caroline Kennedy, "Brooksley Born recognized that the financial security of all Americans was being put at risk by the greed, negligence and opposition of  powerful and well connected interests     The catastrophic financial events of recent months have  proved them [Born and Sheila Bair] right "  One member of the President's working group had a change of heart about Brooksley Born   SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt stated "I've come to know her as one of the most capable, dedicated, intelligent and committed public servants that I have ever come to know", adding that "I could have done much better  I could have made a difference" in response to her warnings 

In 2010, a documentary film Inside Job further alleged that derivatives regulation was ineffective from the Clinton administration on  Along with fellow whistleblower, former IMF Chief Economist Raghuram Rajan, who was also scorned by the economic establishment, Brooksley Born was cited as one of the authorities arguing that financial derivatives increase economic risk 

 Personal life 
Born is married to Alexander E  Bennett (also retired from Arnold & Porter)   She has five adult children - two from a previous marriage to Jacob Landau and three stepchildren  Notably, Born was named a partner at Arnold & Porter while working part-time so she could raise her two young children   When both of her children were school-age, Born returned to practice full-time 

References

External links
Attorney profile at Arnold & Porter
Brooksley Born (2009 Winner) of the Profiles in Courage Award, with acceptance speech transcript and NECN video

Profile at MarketsWiki
Speeches and statements
"Testimony Of Brooksley Born Chairperson of the CFTC Concerning The Over-The-Counter Derivatives Market", before the House Committee On Banking And Financial Services, July 24, 1998 
"The Lessons of Long Term Capital Management L P ", Remarks of Brooksley Born, Chairperson of the CFTC, Chicago-Kent-IIT Commodities Law Institute, Chicago, Illinois, October 15, 1998 
 Interview: Brooksley Born for "PBS Frontline: The Warning", PBS, (streaming VIDEO 1 hour), October 20, 2009 
Articles
Manuel Roig-Franzia  "Credit Crisis Cassandra:Brooksley Born's Unheeded Warning Is a Rueful Echo 10 Years On", The Washington Post, May 26, 2009
 Taibbi, Matt  "The Great American Bubble Machine", Rolling Stone'', July 9–23, 2009

1940 births
American women lawyers
Arnold & Porter people
Clinton administration personnel
Columbus School of Law faculty
Commodity Futures Trading Commission personnel
Heads of United States federal agencies
Lawyers from San Francisco
Living people
Stanford Law School alumni
21st-century American women
Stanford University alumni 
Context 2: UT College of Liberal Arts: College of Liberal Arts University of Texas at Austin Departments Graduate Resources Undergraduate Resources Courses Online Courses Dean's Office Alumni & Giving Faculty by Department Search the College of Liberal Arts
next profile Jeffrey Tulis Associate Professor — Ph D ,
E-mail: tulis@austin utexas edu
Office: MEZ 3 152
Political Theory and American Politics
Professor Tulis's interests bridge the fields of political theory and American politics, including more specifically, American political development, constitutional theory, political philosophy and the American presidency  His publications include The Presidency in the Constitutional Order (LSU, 1981; Transaction, 2010), The Rhetorical Presidency (Princeton, 1987), The Constitutional Presidency (Johns Hopkins 2009), The Limits of Constitutional Democracy (Princeton, 2010) and recent journal articles and chapters on constitutional interpretation, the logic of political change, and the meaning of political success  Four collections of essays on The Rhetorical Presidency with responses by Tulis have been published, including a special double issue of Critical Review: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Politics and Society, (2007), where his book is described as "one of the two or three most important and perceptive works written by a political scientist in the twentieth century "
He has served as President of the Politics and History Section of the American Political Science Association  He received the President's Associates Teaching Excellence Award at the University of Texas  He has held research fellowships from NEH, ACLS, Olin Foundation, Harvard Law School, and the Mellon Preceptorship at Princeton University, where he taught before moving to Texas  He has held visiting positions at Notre Dame and Harvard  He has served as associate chair of the Department of Government from 1989-2001 and was acting chair during 1992-93  and for part of each year between 1989 and 2001  During the academic year 2008-09, he was a Laurance S  Rockefeller Visiting Fellow at the University Center for Human Values at Princeton  During Spring 2016, he was a Dahrendorf Visiting Fellow at the London School of Economics and Political Science 
His forthcoming books include: Legacies of Losing in American Politics, with Nicole Mellow (University of Chicago Press, Fall 2017), and an expanded edition of The Rhetorical Presidency in the Princeton Classics series (Princeton, Fall 2017)  For two decades he served as co-editor of the Johns Hopkins Series in Constitutional Thought, and he currently co-edits (with Sanford Levinson) Constitutional Thinking, a Series at the University Press of Kansas 
GOV 370L • Pres In Constitutional Ord 38840 • Spring 2017 Meets MW 2:30PM-4:00PM CAL 221 show description
GOV 370 Seminar: The Presidency in the Constitutional Order
Spring 2017 Unique # 38840
MW 2:30 to 4pm GDC 2 402
Jeffrey K  Tulis
In this Seminar we will discuss a series of constitutional problems including: the problem of executive energy in the American Constitution; presidential selection and the problem of political legitimacy; separation of powers; delegation of powers, the constitutional status of war and foreign affairs, administration and bureaucracy and the meaning of leadership in the constitutional order 
Seminar will meet twice a week and regular attendance and thorough preparation for discussion is expected  Unexcused absence from more than three classes will result in failure of the participation component of the course  There will also be pop quizzes on the reading that will count as part of your participation grade  In addition to class participation, course requirements include four short analytic essays, and one in-class test  The course grade will be calculated as follows:
Seminar participation: 20%
In-class test: 20%
Three analytic essays 60% (20% each)
Class participation is especially important  Preparation for seminar and for your in-class test will be enhanced by careful note taking on the readings  If students appear to be unprepared, pop quizzes will be given and the grades on them will affect the participation component of your course grade 
Texts: (tentative)
Joseph M  Bessette and Jeffrey K  Tulis, The Constitutional Presidency
Michael Nelson, The Presidency in the Political System (tenth edition)
Richard Ellis and Michael Nelson, Debating the Presidency (third edition)
The Federalist (any edition, or online) GOV 310L • American Government-Honors 38335 • Fall 2016 Meets TTH 3:30PM-5:00PM BEN 1 106 show description
GOV 310 (Honors) (38335) Fall 2016
TTH 3:30-5:00pm, BEN 1 106
This honors seminar offers an introduction to American politics that emphasizes the confluence of ideas, mores, institutions, and interests, in the constitutional system  This course covers more theory, and the readings are more demanding, than other versions of GOV 310  One of the main objectives of the course is to deepen your understanding of the practical aspects of contemporary public affairs by developing your ability to understand the theoretical foundations of American politics  Although we cover the nuts and bolts of politics there is much more theory in this version of GOV 310  If you have registered for this section mainly because 310 is a legislative requirement that you need to fulfill, this is not the right version for you  There is a substantial workload in this class 
Regular attendance, thorough and timely preparation, and active participation are all necessary to do well 
Four essays (approximately 1000 words each)  Three of these will be assigned analytic essay topics  The last will be a book review of a title chosen by the student from a long list of provided possibilities  (15% each essay, 60% of total course grade)
Two in-class tests  These will count 15% each, 30% of total course grade 
Class participation  (10% of course grade)  Both informed participation and occasional leadership of the seminar will be graded 
No make-up exams or late papers, except for documented medical or other emergencies 
Mark Landy and Sidney M  Milkis, American Government: Enduring Principles, Critical Choices, Third Edition
Mary Nichols and David Nichols, Readings in American Government, Ninth Edition
Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein, Its Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism
Bruce Ackerman,Before the Next Attack: Preserving Civil Liberties in an Age of Terrorism GOV 381L • Constitutional Conflict 38660 • Fall 2016 Meets W 3:30PM-6:30PM BAT 5 102 show description
GOV 381L Fall 2016
Constitutional Conflict
W 3:30-6:30pm, BAT 5 102
Many of the most important debates regarding the nature and character of contemporary American politics are essentially arguments regarding the structure of separation of powers  In this seminar we will consider such questions as whether the American system is prone to deadlock of stalemate in the construction of national policy; whether conflict is a hindrance to institutional responsibility or an essential attribute of responsibility; whether there are “political questions” especially suitable to resolution between President and Congress; how one can distinguish salutary from pathological conflict, and whether it is truly possible to harness the ambition of office holders to the duties of their office 
More specifically, we will review literature and arguments regarding constitutional reform; divided government; separation of powers theory; and case studies of Supreme Court appointments; the budget process; and war powers and foreign affairs  In these contexts we will also discuss current controversies surrounding war authorization, intelligence and secrecy, sequestration, government shut downs and budget resolutions, and debt ceiling politics 
The course is designed to accommodate two different student needs: it will provide a good overview of important literature relevant to the comprehensive examination in American politics and it will provide opportunities for research  This subject area is a treasure trove of “hot” topics, publication possibilities, subjects for MA theses and Ph D  dissertations  I will tailor the written requirements to the objectives of individual students 
1  All students will prepare a short analytic essay early in the semester, and an annotated bibliography at mid-semester  These assignments will count (30%) of the grade 
2  Students interested primarily in exam preparation will complete an examination near the end of the semester based on study questions assigned in advance  OR
Students interested in research will write a 20-25 page paper  (60%)
3  A basic requirement of the course is that students prepare for each seminar by carefully reading the material assigned for that week  Class discussion is an essential component of the course  (10%)
Tentative Texts:
Jones, Separate But Equal Branches
Silverstein, Imbalance of Powers
Wilson & Schram, Separation of Powers and Good Government
Burgess, Contest for Constitutional Authority
Farrier, Passing the Buck: Congress, the Budget and Deficits
Weissman, A Culture of Deference
Zeisberg, War Powers: The Politics of Constitutional Authority
Fisher, Congressional Abdication on War and Spending
Lowi, The End of Liberalism GOV 379S • Regime Persp Amer Poltc-Honors 38105 • Spring 2016 Meets TH 3:30PM-6:30PM GAR 1 134 (also listed as CTI 335, LAH 350) show description
GOV 379S Regime Perspectives on American Politics
This is a seminar on American politics and culture  Two purposes govern the selection of texts for the course and guide our discussion of them  All of our texts attempt to look at American politics as a whole  Most books and courses on America look at only a part, such as the Presidency, or elections, or popular culture  Here we attempt to think about how the parts of America fit together  Even when these texts speak about a part, for example an institution such as the presidency or the Congress, they present the topic from a vantage point on the whole polity  To see the polity as a whole also means that we will have to revisit and rethink aspects of our political life that we take for granted – that we don’t examine because those parts have become so natural or familiar to us  Seeing the polity whole enables us to render the familiar unfamiliar, to make what we take for granted strange and new 
To see the polity as a whole requires that we get some distance from our subject, much as to see the planet earth as a whole requires one to look at it from outer space  Just as it is difficult to get visual perspective on a place living within it, it is difficult to understand the promise or pathologies of a regime from within  To get critical distance from our politics, we will closely study three sets of texts that look at American politics from a distance  The first part of the course will recover the perspective of the founding debate between Federalists and Anti-federalists  This fundamental debate reveals what is a stake in the basic architecture of the American regime  The second part of the course is a close study of Tocqueville’s Democracy in America  Regarded by many as the best book ever written on democracy and the best book written on America, Tocqueville sees our polity whole because he looks at it from the vantage point of Europe, in general, and France, in particular  In the third part of the seminar we think about American politics from the perspective of thoughtful commentators who feel only nominally included in the polity  Half in and half out, these extraordinary black American writers reveal fissures and fault lines in the American regime  We end the class with a discussion of America’s place in the world today – examining a speech by a writer who articulately raises challenges to our self-understanding that are inarticulately expressed today in rage and ranting from enemies of the United States 
Three take home analytic essays, chosen from a list of topics I provide, each weighted 25% of the course grade  Late essays will not be accepted, except with a doctor’s excuse or a Dean’s excuse for family emergency 
OR as an option: you may write the two short essays (both together weighted 25%) and do a longer 15 page paper on a topic of your choice in consultation with me (weighted 50% of your course grade)  Government honors students who are thinking of doing an honors thesis next year may prefer this option to begin to develop research and writing skills for longer work  Students who prefer this option will need to designate their preferred third short essay and have discussed with me a topic for their long paper by March 30  Texts:
Selected Anti-Federalist writings
Tocqueville, Democracy in America
Essays, speeches and articles by Frederick Douglass, W E B  Dubois, Booker T  Washington, James Baldwin and Ralph Ellison GOV 382M • Democratic Theory 38120 • Spring 2016 Meets M 3:30PM-6:30PM BAT 1 104 show description
GOV 382M (38120)
Democratic Theory Spring 2016
This is a graduate seminar on contemporary topics in democratic theory  Topics to be covered include: democratic epistemology; deliberative democracy; the meaning of the people; oracular democracy; agonistic democracy; and possibly new theories of republicanism, representation and partisanship 
Texts (tentative)
Helene Landemore, Democratic Reason
Jeffrey Edward Green, The Eyes of the People
Amy Gutmann and Dennis Thompson, Why Deliberative Democracy?
Alan Keenan, Democracy in Question
Jason Frank, Constituent Moments
Jason Frank, Publius and Political Imagination
Nadia Urbanati, Democracy Disfigured
Russell Muirhead, Partisanship in a Polarized Age
Bryan Garsten, manuscript
Active seminar participation; an annotated bibliography or review essay; a research/analytic paper  GOV 310L • American Government-Honors 37615 • Fall 2015 Meets TTH 2:00PM-3:30PM BEN 1 106 show description
TTH 2-3:30/BEN 1 106
Bruce Ackerman,Before the Next Attack: Preserving Civil Liberties in an Age of Terrorism GOV 370L • Presidency In Constitutl Order 37845 • Fall 2015 Meets TTH 5:00PM-6:30PM PAR 310 show description
GOV 370L (37845)
TTH 5-6:30 PAR 310
The Presidency in the Constitutional Order
A study of the place of the presidency in the American political order that stresses tension between power and accountability inherent in the office and the system  Topics include: separation of powers, presidential selection, impeachment, relations with Congress and bureaucracy, emergency powers, presidential character, and leadership 
This is a very demanding writing flag class  If you are enrolling in this class just in order to satisfy the writing flag, you are in the wrong class  Interest in political theory and willingness to work very hard are necessary for success in this class 
Joseph M  Bessette, The Constitutional Presidency
Andrew Rudalevige, The New Imperial Presidency
Bruce Ackerman, The Rise and Decline of the American Republic
Michael Nelson, ed , The Presidency in the Political System
Michael Nelson, ed , The Evolving Presidency
Louis Fisher, Constitutional Conflicts Between Congress and the President
Active and prepared class participation
Regular quizzes on the reading
Four analytic essays (approximately 1200 words) 
One term paper, (approximately 5000 words)  GOV 379S • Regime Persp On Amer Politics 38100 • Spring 2015 Meets T 3:30PM-6:30PM MEZ 1 104 (also listed as LAH 350) show description
Essays, speeches and articles by Frederick Douglass, W E B  Dubois, Booker T  Washington, James Baldwin and Ralph Ellison GOV 382M • Tocqueville 38135 • Spring 2015 Meets M 3:30PM-6:30PM BAT 5 102 show description
This graduate seminar will be devoted to close readings of two principal writings of Tocqueville: Democracy in America and The Ancien Regime and the Revolution  We will also assess some of the best secondary studies of Tocqueville, including work by Sheldon Wolin, Harvey Mansfield, Delba Winthrop, Jon Elster, Francois Furet, and a book by Pierre Manent 
Course requirements will include two very short analytic essays and one seminar paper (20-25 pages)  GOV 310L • American Government-Honors 38722 • Fall 2014 Meets TTH 2:00PM-3:30PM GAR 2 112 show description
Joseph M  Bessette and John J  Pitney, American Government and Politics: Deliberation, Democracy and Citizenship
Mary Nichols and David Nichols, Readings in American Government
Bruce Ackerman,Before the Next Attack: Preserving Civil Liberties in an Age of Terrorism GOV 370L • Presidency In Constitutl Order 38977 • Fall 2014 Meets TTH 9:30AM-11:00AM CBA 4 332 show description
A study of the place of the presidency in the American political order that stresses
tension between power and accountability inherent in the office and the system 
Topics include: separation of powers, presidential selection, impeachment,
relations with Congress and bureaucracy, emergency powers, presidential
character, and leadership 
This is a very demanding writing flag class  If you are enrolling in this class just in order
to satisfy the writing flag, you are in the wrong class  Interest in political theory and willingness
to work very hard are necessary for success in this class 
One term paper, (approximately 5000 words)  GOV 379S • Regime Persp On Amer Politics 39395 • Spring 2014 Meets T 3:30PM-6:30PM MEZ 1 104 (also listed as CTI 335, LAH 350) show description
Essays, speeches and articles by Frederick Douglass, W E B  Dubois, Booker T  Washington, James Baldwin and Ralph Ellison GOV 381L • Constitutional Conflict 39415 • Spring 2014 Meets M 3:30PM-6:30PM BAT 1 104 show description
Lowi, The End of Liberalism GOV 330K • The American President 39140 • Fall 2013 Meets MW 3:00PM-4:30PM MEZ B0 306 show description
This course offers an over view of the place of the presidency in the American political order  Topics covered include: constitutional design of the office; nominations and elections; legislative leadership; leadership of the bureaucracy; staffing and organizing the White House; the presidency and the judiciary; war and emergencies  We will spend extra time this fall on the presidential campaign and election of 2012 
Two in-class examinations (50% of the final grade)
One short (1000 word) take-home essay (30% of the final grade)
Class participation and quizzes (20% of the final grade)
Richard J  Ellis, The Development of the American Presidency (Routledge, 2012)
Richard J  Ellis and Michael Nelson, eds, Debating the American Presidency, (2nd edition, CQ Press, 2009)
Packet of selected primary texts (to be linked or posted on Blackboard)  GOV 330K • The American President 39145 • Fall 2013 Meets MW 5:00PM-6:30PM MEZ B0
Context 3: Xpp-pdf support utility
Xpp-pdf support utility
PATENT, TRADEMARK
& COPYRIGHT !
Reproduced with permission from BNA’s Patent,Trademark 11/20/09, 11/20/2009  Copyright ஽ 2009 by The Bu-reau of National Affairs, Inc  (800-372-1033) http://www bna com As the patent community anticipates a decision by the U S  Supreme Court on subject matter patentability, recent rulings by the Federal Circuit and the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences suggest strategies for preparing method patent applications that will sur- vive the Federal Circuit’s ‘‘machine-or-transformation’’ test 
The Changing Landscape of Method Claims in the Wake of In re Bilski:What We Can Learn from Recent Decisions of Federal Courts and the Board ofPatent Appeals rulings on software-based and other business methodpatent applications 
On review before the high court is the en banc ruling ‘‘Pure’’ business methods are out  Algorithms by the U S  Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit1 are out  Machines and data transformations that, in order to be eligible for patent protection, an in- ventive method must either be tied to a machine or re- While the patent community waits for the Supreme cite a transformation of an article 2 This ‘‘machine-or- Court’s decision in Bilski v  Kappos, No  08-964 (U S 
transformation’’ test replaced the Freeman-Walter- argued Nov  9, 2009) (79 PTCJ 33, 11/13/09), patent ap- Abele3 test and the ‘‘useful, concrete and tangible plicants seeking to write patentable claims are stuckwith trying to conform to the lower courts’ most recent 1 In re Bilski, 545 F 3d 943, 88 USPQ2d 1385 (Fed  Cir 
2008) (en banc) (77 PTCJ 4, 11/7/08) 
2 ‘‘The machine-or-transformation test is a two-branched Adriana Suringa Luedke and Bridget M  Hay- inquiry; an applicant may show that a process claim satisfies den are lawyers at Dorsey & Whitney, Min- § 101 either by showing that his claim is tied to a particular neapolis  Luedke can be reached at machine, or by showing that his claim transforms an article ’’ leudke adriana@dorsey com  Hayden can be reached at hayden bridget@dorsey com  3 In re Freeman, 573 F 2d 1237, 197 USPQ 464 (C C P A 
1978); In re Walter, 618 F 2d 758, 205 USPQ 397 (C C P A 
COPYRIGHT ஽ 2009 BY THE BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS, INC 
result’’ inquiry advocated in State Street,4 each of gregating, and selling real estate property and claims which had been applied by the Federal Circuit and its reciting a method of performing tax-deferred real estate predecessor court in various cases, and both of which property exchanges were not statutory under Section 101  Since no machine was recited, the only issue be- In this article, we examine the 2008 decision of the fore the court was whether the claims met the ‘‘trans- Federal Circuit, federal district court decisions, and de- formation’’ prong of the Bilski test 13 The court held cisions of Patent and Trademark Office’s Board of that the claims ‘‘involve[d] only the transformation or Patent Appeals and Interferences  Based upon the out- manipulation of legal obligations and relationships’’ comes in these cases, we offer guidance as to what is that did not qualify under Bilski 14 patent-eligible under 35 U S C  § 101, strategies for pre- Concerning the recitation of the ‘‘creation of deed- senting methods in patent applications and claiming shares’’ in some of the claims, the court found that the these methods, and possible ‘‘fixes’’ for applications deedshares themselves were not physical objects, but drafted pre-Bilski that must now withstand scrutiny un- only represented intangible legal ownership interests in der the new machine-or-transformation test 
property 15 Therefore, the creation of deedshares wasnot sufficient to establish patent eligibility under Bil- A number of recent federal court and board decisions have applied the patent eligibility test set forth in Bilski, implemented step to an otherwise obvious method was not sufficient to avoid invalidity of the claim  In KingPharmeuticals Inc  v  Eon Labs Inc ,17 the district court held invalid claims to a method of increasing the oral Several cases have addressed (and rejected) claims bioavailability of metaxalone because the claims were obvious over the prior art asserted by the accused in- In In re Ferguson,6 the Federal Circuit reviewed the board’s rejection of claims directed to a method of mar- Two dependent claims added a step of informing the keting a product and a ‘‘paradigm’’ for marketing soft- patient of certain results, which the patentee argued ware as nonstatutory subject matter under Section was not obvious  The court rejected this argument, con- 101 7 The appellate court affirmed the board’s rejection, cluding that ‘‘[b]ecause the food effect is an inherent concluding that the method claims were neither tied to property of the prior art and, therefore, unpatentable, a particular machine or apparatus nor did they trans- then informing a patient of that inherent property is form a particular article into a different state or thing 8 The court defined a machine broadly as ‘‘a concrete The court also commented that the added step of in- thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices or com- forming the patient did not meet the patent eligibility binations of devices,’’ which did not include the ‘‘shared standard set forth in Bilski because the step did not re- marketing force’’ to which the method claims were quire use of a machine or transform the metaxalone into a different state or thing 19 Notably, this conclusion The claims directed to a ‘‘paradigm’’ were non- runs counter to the Supreme Court’s instruction that statutory because the claims did not fall within any of claims are to be examined ‘‘as a whole’’ and not dis- the four statutory categories (machines, manufactures, sected into old and new elements and that are evaluated compositions of matter and processes)  Concerning the two closest possible categories, the court concluded Recent board decisions have been consistent with the that the claimed paradigm was not a process, because holdings of the federal courts  For example, in Ex parte no act or series of acts was required, and was not a Roberts,21 the board found ineligible under Section 101 manufacture, because it was not a tangible article re- a ‘‘method of creating a real estate investment instru- sulting from a process of manufacture 10 Concerning ment adapted for performing tax-deferred exchanges’’ the recitation of a ‘‘marketing company’’ in the para- because the claim did not satisfy either the machine or digm claims, the court concluded that the patent appli- cants did ‘‘no more than provide an abstract idea—a Similarly, in Ex parte Haworth,23 a method for ‘‘at- business model for an intangible marketing com- tempting to collect payments from customers having delinquent accounts concurrently with a partner that In Fort Properties Inc  v  American Master Lease owns the delinquent accounts’’ was found to be patent LLC,12 the California district court held that claims re- ineligible because the claim wording was ‘‘broad in that citing a series of transactions involving acquiring, ag- 1980); In re Abele, 684 F 2d 902, 214 USPQ 682 (C C P A 
4 State Street Bank & Trust Co  v  Signature Financial 16 See Ex parte Roberts , 2009-004444 at 4-5 (B P A I  June Group, 149 F 3d 1368, 1370, 47 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed  Cir  1998) 19, 2009) (holding a ‘‘method of creating a real estate invest- ment instrument adapted for performing tax-deferred ex- changes’’ patent ineligible as not passing the machine-or- 7 The court accepted the board’s definition of ‘‘paradigm’’ 17 593 F  Supp 2d 501 (E D N Y  2009) 
to mean ‘‘a pattern, example or model ’’ Id  at 1362 
20 See Diamond v  Diehr, 450 U S  175, 188 (1981) 
21 No  2009-004444 (B P A I  June 19, 2009) 
12 2009 WL 249205, *5 (C D  Cal  Jan  22, 2009) 
23 No  2009-000350 (B P A I  July 30, 2009) 
it refers generally to extending an offer, receiving an machine  Accordingly, the process claims       are not acceptance, and paying a commission’’ and did not in- voke, recite or limit the method of implementation us-ing any particular machine or apparatus 24 The court also evaluated similar claims that recited the use of a ‘‘comparator’’ to perform the recited pixel- B  Software Claims Not Expressly Tied to a ‘Particular by-pixel comparison and held that this recitation also did not mandate a machine 29 While the court acknowl-edged that software was offered as one ‘‘option,’’ the Other cases have addressed software methods where court concluded that the claimed function of the com- the claim language was either not expressly tied to com- parator could also be performed in one’s mind or on pa- puter hardware components or the ties to computer per such that a machine was not required  The court components were somewhat ambiguous  In several further noted that, even though the ‘‘comparator’’ was cases, courts have rejected the recitation of generic defined as a ‘‘device,’’ ‘‘the use of the term ‘device’ is computer components as sufficient to satisfy the ‘‘ma- not synonymous with machine ’’30 As a result, none of chine’’ prong of the Bilski test  A number of these deci- the claims at issue met the ‘‘machine’’ prong of the Bil- sions also addressed the ‘‘transformation’’ prong of the Concerning the ‘‘transformation’’ prong, the court re- In Research Corporation Technology Inc  v  Mi- lied in particular upon the Abele decision in expanding crosoft Corp ,25 the district court considered the patent the requirements of this test by requiring that the eligibility of method claims in six patents directed to claimed transformation process be both ‘‘(1) limited to methods of halftoning of gray scale images by using a transformation of specific data, and 2) limited to a vi- pixel-by-pixel comparison of the image against a blue sual depiction representing specific objects or sub- noise mask  Relying on the Federal Circuit’s Bilski stances ’’31 It then concluded that a number of the analysis as well as a decision of its predecessor court, patent claims did not meet the second prong of this ex- In re Abele,26 the judge concluded that a number of the panded test because the claims did not ‘‘require any vi- sual depiction or subsequent display’’ even though the transformation test set forth in Bilski 27 claimed method did transform specific image data 32 Concerning the ‘‘machine’’ prong, the district court The district court also found other claims patent- found that the pixel-by-pixel comparison recited in the eligible under Section 101 because these claims recited claims did not require the use of a machine, but could the use of the comparison data ‘‘to produce a halftoned ‘‘dictate[d] a transformation of specific data, and [were] be done on a sheet of paper using a pen  The com- further limited to a visual depiction which represents parison uses formulas and numbers to generate a bi- specific objects ’’33 Thus, the patent eligibility of the nary value to determine the placement of a dot at a claims turned on whether the claims recited the use of location  Formulas and numbers not tied to a particu- the transformed data to generate a display 
lar machine cannot be patented, under the machine In DealerTrack Inc  v  Huber,34 the district court prong, even with a field-of-use limitation because granted a summary judgment of invalidity under § 101 they represent fundamental principles, and to do so of patent claims directed to ‘‘a computer aided method’’ would preempt the entire field  The patent claims      
of managing a credit application reciting the following do not mandate the use of a machine to achieve their algorithmic and algebraic ends  Simply because adigital apparatus such as a computer, calculator, or [A] receiving credit application data from a remote the like could assist with this comparison does not render it patent eligible material  RCT’s argument [B] selectively forwarding the credit application data that a pixel by its nature is electronic and therefore to remote funding source terminal devices; necessitates a machine is a post solution argumentand the Court rejects it  The claim construction specifies that the comparison is of a value to a mask 29 The term ‘‘comparator’’ was construed by the court to be (or set of values) to determine whether the dot is a ‘‘device (or collection of operations, as in software) that com- turned on at a specific location  This process does pares an input number (called the operand) to a number pre- not require a particular machine  The Bilski test is stored in the comparator (called the threshold) and produces clear: the process claims must be tied to a particular as output a binary value (such as ‘‘0,’’ zero) if the input is alge-braically less than the threshold [the result of comparing anoperand against a fixed threshold and setting an operand less 24 Id  at 9-10  See also, e g , Ex parte Farnes, 2009-002770 than the threshold to one value and an operand greater than (B P A I  June 2, 2009) (rejecting a method claim for develop- or equal to the threshold to another value], and produces the ing a solution to a customer experience issue including steps opposite binary value (such as ‘‘1,’’ one) if the input is algebra- of: ‘‘identifying a target customer,’’ ‘‘defining a current cus- ically greater than or equal to the threshold ’’ Id  at *17 (em- tomer experience,’’ ‘‘summarizing values and benefits’’ to pro- vide to the customer, and ‘‘identifying metrics for measuring success’’); Ex parte Salinkas, 2009-002768 (B P A I  May 18, 31 Id  at *9  Notably, Bilski concluded that the Abele visual 2009) (finding patent ineligible a method of launching a depiction was ‘‘sufficient’’ to establish transformation (545 knowledge network involving ‘‘selecting an executive spon- F 3d at 963), while the Research Corporation court went fur- sor,’’ ‘‘forming a core team of experts,’’ and ‘‘providing pre- ther by making visual depiction ‘‘required’’ to establish trans- 25 2009 WL 2413623 (D  Ariz  July 28, 2009) (78 PTCJ 432, 26 684 F 2d 902, 214 USPQ 682 (C C P A  1982) 
34 2009 WL 2020761 (C D  Cal  July 7, 2009) (78 PTCJ 341, PATENT, TRADEMARK & COPYRIGHT JOURNAL [C] forwarding funding decision data from at least tation of ‘over the Internet’ suffices to tie a process one of the remote funding source terminal de- claim to a particular machine’’ and concluded that it vices to the remote application entry and display The internet continues to exist despite the addition [D] wherein the selectively forwarding the credit ap- or subtraction of any particular piece of hardware  It may be supposed that the internet itself, rather than [E] sending at least a portion of a credit application any underlying computer or set of computers, is the to more than one of said remote funding sources ‘‘machine’’ to which plaintiff refers  Yet the internet is an abstraction  If every computer user in the world [F] sending at least a portion of a credit application unplugged from the internet, the internet would to more than one of said remote funding sources cease to exist, although every molecule of every ma- sequentially until a finding [sic ] source returns a chine remained in place  One can touch a computer or a network cable, but one cannot touch ‘‘the inter- [G] sending       a credit application       after a prede- Additionally, the court found that the recitation of the [H] sending the credit application from a first remote internet in this case merely constituted ‘‘insignificant funding source to a second remote funding extra-solution activity’’ and therefore did not qualify as a ‘‘particular machine’’ under Bilski 41 ‘‘[T]ossing in In concluding that the claim did not satisfy the Bilski references to internet commerce’’ was not sufficient to machine-or-transformation test, the court held that the render ‘‘a mental process for collecting data and weigh- claimed central processor, remote application and dis- ing values’’ patent-eligible 42 Additionally, ‘‘limiting’’ play device, and remote funding source terminal device the claim to use over the Internet was not a meaningful could be ‘‘any device’’ and did not constitute a ‘‘’par- limitation, such that the claims ‘‘broadly preempt the ticular machine’ within the meaning of Bilski ’’35 The fundamental mental process of fraud detection using court relied upon several board decisions to support its associations between credit cards ’’43 premise that ‘‘claims reciting the use of general purpose processors or computers do not satisfy the test ’’36 claim,44 notwithstanding the Federal Circuit’s holding In Cybersource Corp  v  Retail Decisions Inc ,37 the in In re Beauregard,45 the district court concluded that district court held claims for ‘‘a method for verifying the ‘‘there is at present no legal doctrine creating a special validity of a credit card transaction over the Internet’’ ‘‘Beauregard claim’’ that would exempt the claim from and ‘‘a computer readable medium containing program the analysis of Bilski ’’ Moreover, ‘‘[s]imply appending instructions for detecting fraud in a credit card transac- ‘A computer readable media including program instruc- tion       over the Internet’’ invalid under § 101 based tions’ to an otherwise non-statutory process claim is in- upon the court’s interpretation of Bilski 
sufficient to make it statutory ’’46 Consequently, this Concerning the method claim, the court considered claim also failed the Bilski test 
both the ‘‘transformation’’ and ‘‘machine’’ prongs of the In at least one instance, the U S  International Trade Bilski test  In concluding that there was no transforma- Commission has interpreted the ‘‘machine’’ prong of tion, the court focused on the intangibility of the ma- Bilski less stringently than did the district courts in the nipulated data  According to the court, transformation cases discussed above  In In the Matter of Certain Video is limited to transformation of a physical article or sub- Game Machines and Related Three-Dimensional Point- stance  Accordingly, the method claim did not qualify ing Devices,47 the accused infringer filed a motion for because the data representing credit cards did not rep- summary judgment alleging that the asserted claims resent tangible articles but instead an intangible series impermissibly sought to patent a mathematical algo- of rights and obligations existing between the account rithm  According to the movant, the recitations of a ‘‘3D pointing device,’’ ‘‘handheld device,’’ or ‘‘free space Concerning whether the claimed method was tied to pointing device’’ were not sufficient to tie the claims to a particular machine, the court assessed whether ‘‘reci- a particular machine, but served ‘‘only to limit the field-of-use of the claimed mathematical algorithm and [did] not otherwise impart patentability on the claimed math- Id  at *3  The court relied upon the holdings in Ex parte Gutta, No  2008-3000 at 5-6 (B P A I  Jan  15, 2009) (stating In denying the motion for summary judgment, the ‘‘[t]he recitation in the preamble of ‘[a] computerized method ITC first noted that, ‘‘[w]hile the ultimate determination performed by a data processor’ adds nothing more than a gen- of whether the asserted claims are patentable under eral purpose computer that is associated with the steps of the § 101 is a question of law, the Federal Circuit has ac- process in an unspecified manner ’’); Ex parte Nawathe, No 
2007-3360, 2009 WL 327520, *4 (B P A I  Feb  9, 2009) (finding‘‘the computerized recitation purports to a general purpose processor [], as opposed to a particular computer specifically programmed for executing the steps of the claimed method ’’); and Ex parte Cornea-Hasegan, No  2008-4742 at 9-10 (B P A I 
Jan  13, 2009) (indicating the appellant does not dispute ‘‘the recitation of a processor does not limit the process steps to any 44 Claims having this format are called ‘‘Beauregard’’ specific machine or apparatus ’’)  The court also cited Cyber- claims and were found to not be barred by the traditional source Corp  v  Retail Decisions Inc , (discussed below), in sup- printed matter rule in In re Beauregard, 53 F 3d 1583, 1584, 35 port of its interpretation of the required ‘‘particular machine ’’ 37 620 F  Supp  2d 1068, 92 USPQ2d 1011 (N D  Cal  2009) 47 2009 WL 1070801 (U S I T C  2009) 
knowledged that ‘there may be cases in which the legal given a dataset of feature vectors associated with the question as to patentable subject matter may turn on subsidiary factual issues’ ’’ (citation omitted)  In con- for each binary partition under consideration, rank- struing the claims, the tribunal found that there was a ing features using two-category feature ranking; and genuine dispute as to whether the claimed ‘‘devices’’represented a ‘‘particular machine’’ under the Bilski while the predetermined number of features has not test and whether the claimed ‘‘two-dimensional rota- yet been selected: picking a binary partition p; tional transform’’ was merely a mathematical calcula- selecting a feature based on the ranking for binary tion or instead meant ‘‘changing the mathematical rep- resentation of a two-dimensional quantity from oneframe of reference to a differently-oriented frame of ref- adding the selected feature to an output list if not al- erence’’ as asserted by the patentee  Additionally, the ready present in the output list and removing the se- dispute over the meaning of the claimed ‘‘two- lected feature from further consideration for the bi- dimensional rotational transform’’ also raised a dis- puted issue as to whether this element recited a trans- Notably, while the independent claim failed the formation that would qualify under the ‘‘transforma- machine-or-transformation test, its dependent claim tion’’ prong of Bilski  Given these disputed issues, the was eligible because it recited, ‘‘further comprising us- ITC concluded that it was inappropriate to grant sum- ing the selected features in training a classifier for clas- mary judgment as to the patent eligibility of the claims 
sifying data into categories ’’ In view of the specifica- A similar conclusion was reached in Versata Soft- tion, the board indicated that the ‘‘classifier’’ was a par- ware Inc  v  Sun Microsystems Inc ,48 in which the dis- ticular machine ‘‘in that it performs a particular data trict court denied the defendant’s motion for summary classification function that is beyond mere general pur- judgment of invalidity under Section 101 based upon pose computing ’’53 The board also concluded that the the Bilski court’s refusal ‘‘to adopt a broad exclusion claim ‘‘transforms a particular article into a different over software or any other such category of subject state or thing, namely by transforming an untrained matter beyond the exclusion of claims drawn to funda- classifier into a trained classifier ’’54 In Ex parte Casati,55 the board reversed the examin- Less stringent ‘‘machine’’ prong analyses are also er’s Section 101 rejection of a method claim reciting: found at the board level  For example, in Ex parteSchrader,50 the board held patent-eligible under Bilski A method of analyzing data and making predictions, reading process execution data from logs for a busi- A method for obtaining feedback from consumers re- ceiving an advertisement from an ad provided by anad provider through an interactive channel, the collecting the process execution data and storing the process execution data in a memory defining a ware-house; creating a feedback panel including at least one feed-back response concerning said advertisement; and analyzing the process execution data; generatingprediction models in response to the analyzing; and providing said feedback panel to said consumers, using the prediction models to predict an occurrence said feedback panel being activated by a consumer to of an exception in the business process 
provide said feedback response concerning said ad-vertisement to said ad provider through said interac- In this case, giving consideration to the specification, which ‘‘unequivocally describes the data warehouse aspart of the overall system apparatus, and subsequent Here, the board found ‘‘interactive channel’’ to be descriptions describe the memory/warehouse device in part of an ‘‘overall patent eligible system of appara- terms of machine executable functions,’’ the board con- tuses’’ when viewed in the context of the specification, cluded that ‘‘one of ordinary skill in the art would un- which included ‘‘the Internet and World Wide Web, In- derstand that the claimed storing of process execution teractive Television, and self service devices, such as In- data in a memory defining a warehouse constitutes formation Kiosks and Automated Teller Machines ’’51 patent-eligible subject matter under § 101 because the In another recent decision, Ex parte Forman,52 the memory/warehouse element ties the claims to a particu- board found a ‘‘computer-implemented feature selec- tion method’’ including a ‘‘classifier’’ eligible under Other recent board decisions have reached the oppo- Section 101 because it satisfied both the machine and transformation prong  Here, the ‘‘classifier’’ was recitedin a dependent claim, in which its independent claim re-cited: 53 Id  at 13 
54 Id  See also Ex parte Busche, No  2008-004750 (B P A I 
A computer-implemented feature selection method May 28, 2009) (holding a process claim and a computer pro- for selecting a predetermined number of features for gram product claim, each reciting training a machine, ‘‘are di- a set of binary partitions over a set of categories rected to machines that have such structure as may be adaptedby training



ground_truth: Jacob C. Landau.

prompt_front: Now, answer the following question based on the text below, only give me the answer and do not output any other words.

Question: What is Professor Tulis's forthcoming book?

Read the following text and answer briefly.

Context 2: 306 show description
Packet of selected primary texts (to be linked or posted on Blackboard)  GOV 381L • American Founding 39040 • Spring 2013 Meets T 6:30PM-9:30PM BAT 1 104 show description
NOTE WELL: Course meets Tuesdays, 6:30 to 9:30pm
Batts Hall 1 104
This is a seminar on American political thought and constitutional design  It is designed for students of American politics and political theory  The principal themes include: 1) the nature of founding and its constitutive significance; 2) the relation of structure and power in American politics; 3) the meaning and significance of the Federalist/Anti-Federalist debate; 4) the philosophic background of the American founding; and 5) the relevance of the founding to debate to prospects for, and pathologies of, American politics today 
We will conduct a close reading of the Madison’s Notes, of The Federalist, and selected Anti-Federalist writings  We will also study a larger and growing body of secondary literature on the constitutional convention, ratification and early American political thought 
James Madison, Notes of the Debates: In the Federal Convention of 1787
The Federalist (Rossiter, ed )
The Anti-Federalist (Storing, ed )
David Brian Robertson, The Constitution and America’s Destiny (2005)
Pauline Maier, Ratification (2012)
Gordon Wood, The Idea of America (2011)
Jack Rakove, Original Meanings: Politics & Ideas in the Making of the Constitution
Herbert Storing, What the Anti-Federalists Were For (1981)
Numerous essays and articles (to be posted on line or gathered in packet)
Grading: Active seminar participation, including three short papers and presentations (40%) and one article-length seminar paper (60%) T C 357 • Amer Founding/Probs Const Des 43095 • Spring 2013 Meets M 3:30PM-6:30PM CRD 007B show description
The American Founding and Problems of Constitutional Design
Jeffrey Tulis, Associate Professor, Department of Government
Sanford Levinson, Professor, School of Law
This Plan II seminar will be built around a close reading of the debates that informed the drafting and ratification of the U S  Constitution  We aim to recover the perspective of these founding thinkers -- their way of thinking -- as much as their concrete ideas, in order to raise fundamental questions about the American political order today  Are some of the most important pathologies of American politics today rooted in design features of our original political architecture? Are the original answers to basic founding questions (such as "how democratic is our Constitution?) still adequate for contemporary circumstances? What features of the Constitution should we preserve and what features should we amend, if possible? Would it be good for the polity as a whole to reconsider these questions in a new constitutional convention today, or would such an event be a political nightmare? Our reading will include notes from the founding conventions, writings by Federalists and Anti-Federalists, and present-day critiques of the American political order  Our aim will be to generate a dialogue between the thought of the founders and some of the best present day critics and supporters of the Constitution 
James Madison, Notes of the Debates in the Federal Convention
The Federalist, ed  Clinton Rossiter
The Anti-Federalist, ed  Herbert Storing
Pauline Maier, Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788
Sanford Levinson, Framed: America’s 51 Constitutions and the Crisis of Governance
Bruce Ackerman, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic
Robert Goldwin, ed  How Democratic is the Constitution?
a course packet of selected articles, essays, and additional primary materials 
Class participation, including at least one presentation of a short discussion paper 25%
One take-home analytic essay 25%
One term paper 50%
About the Professors:
Professor Tulis's interests bridge the fields of political theory and American politics, including more specifically, American political development, constitutional theory, political philosophy and the American presidency  He received the President's Associates Teaching Excellence Award at the University of Texas  He has held research fellowships from NEH, ACLS, Olin Foundation, Harvard Law School, and the Mellon Preceptorship at Princeton University, where he taught before moving to Texas  He has held visiting positions at Notre Dame and Harvard  During the academic year 2008-09, he was a Laurance S  Rockefeller Visiting Fellow at the University Center for Human Values at Princeton 
Proefessor Levinson holds the W  St  John Garwood and W  St  John Garwood, Jr  Centennial Chair in Law, he joined the University of Texas Law School in 1980  Previously a member of the Department of Politics at Princeton University, he is also a Professor in the Department of Government at the University of Texas  The author of over 350 articles and book reviews in professional and popular journals--and a regular contributor to the popular blog Balkinization  He received the Lifetime Achievement Award from the Law and Courts Section of the American Political Science Association in 2010  He has been a visiting faculty member of the Boston University, Georgetown, Harvard, New York University, and Yale law schools in the United States and has taught abroad in programs of law in London; Paris; Jerusalem; Auckland, New Zealand; and Melbourne, Australia 
GOV 330K • The American President 38675 • Fall 2012 Meets MW 3:00PM-4:30PM MEZ B0 306 show description
Packet of selected primary texts (to be linked or posted on Blackboard)  GOV 330K • The American President 38675 • Fall 2011 Meets MW 3:30PM-5:00PM WAG 420 show description
see syllabus GOV 330K • The American President 38680 • Fall 2011 Meets MW 5:30PM-7:00PM UTC 1 146 show description
see syllabus GOV 379S • Regime Persp On Amer Polit-Hon 39110 • Spring 2011 Meets W 3:30PM-6:30PM BAT 5 102 (also listed as CTI 326, LAH 350) show description
To see the polity as a whole requires that we get some distance from our subject, much as to see the planet earth as a whole requires one to look at it from outer space  Just as it is difficult to get visual perspective on a place living within it, it is difficult to understand the promise or pathologies of a regime from within it  To get critical distance from our politics, we will closely study three sets of texts that look at American politics from a distance  The first part of the course will recover the perspective of the founding debate between Federalists and Anti-federalists  This fundamental debate reveals what is a stake in the basic architecture of the American regime  The second part of the course is a close study of Tocqueville’s Democracy in America  Regarded by many as the best book ever written on democracy and the best book written on America, Tocqueville sees our polity whole because he looks at it from the vantage point of Europe, in general, and France, in particular  In the third part of the seminar we think about American politics from the perspective of thoughtful commentators who feel only nominally included in the polity  Half in and half out, these extraordinary black American writers reveal fissures and fault lines in the American regime  We end the class with a discussion of America’s place in the world today – examining a speech by a writer who articulately raises challenges to our self-understanding that are inarticulately expressed today in rage and ranting from enemies of the United States 
Four take home writing assignments  Analytic essays, each 1000-1500 words  (Grades weighted: 10%, 25%, 25%, and 25%) Late essays will not be accepted, except with a doctor’s excuse or a Dean’s excuse for family emergency  Regular preparation and class participation: 15% 
OR as an option: By prior arrangement with me by the due date of the second analytic essay, students may substitute one longer research paper (15 – 20 pages) for two of the last three analytic papers This paper will be on a topic of the students choosing , if I approve, and the due date will be the same as the last assigned analytic essay  This project would count 50% of the students course grade 
Selected writings by Frederick Douglass, W E B  Dubois, Ralph Ellison, James Baldwin
Solzhenitsyn, “A World Split Apart”
Tocqueville, Democracy in America GOV 382M • Tocqueville 39150 • Spring 2011 Meets T 6:30PM-9:30PM BAT 5 102 show description
See syllabus GOV 370L • President, Congress, And Court 38695 • Fall 2010 Meets TTH 8:00AM-9:30AM UTC 3 112 show description
Course Description: A Study of the political relationship of the President, Congress and Court in the American constitutional order  Has this relationship changed over the course of American history? Is American national politics prone to stalemate or deadlock between the branches regarding major issues of public policy? Do we have a new “imperial presidency?” Should the Court arbitrate disputes between the President and Congress over custody of their respective powers? Has Congress abdicated its constitutional responsibilities? We will examine questions like these in light of practical problems such as executive privilege and secrecy, the war on terror, budget politics and controversies regarding appointments to the Supreme Court  Grading:Three in class essay tests, for which study questions will be distributed in advance  The exam questions will be chosen from the list of study questions  (25% each) One short take home essay (10% each)  Class participation and attendance (15%)  Tentative Texts: The FederalistFisher, Congressional Abdication on War and SpendingRudalevige, The New Imperial PresidencyBessette and Tulis, The Constitutional PresidencySkowronek, Presidency in Political TimeGoldsmith, The Terror PresidencyA course packet of articles and essays GOV 370L • President, Congress, And Court 38700 • Fall 2010 Meets TTH 5:00PM-6:30PM UTC 3 122 show description
Course Description: A Study of the political relationship of the President, Congress and Court in the American constitutional order  Has this relationship changed over the course of American history? Is American national politics prone to stalemate or deadlock between the branches regarding major issues of public policy? Do we have a new “imperial presidency?” Should the Court arbitrate disputes between the President and Congress over custody of their respective powers? Has Congress abdicated its constitutional responsibilities? We will examine questions like these in light of practical problems such as executive privilege and secrecy, the war on terror, budget politics and controversies regarding appointments to the Supreme Court  Grading:Three in class essay tests, for which study questions will be distributed in advance  The exam questions will be chosen from the list of study questions  (25% each) One short take home essay (10% each)  Class participation and attendance (15%)  Tentative Texts: The FederalistFisher, Congressional Abdication on War and SpendingRudalevige, The New Imperial PresidencyBessette and Tulis, The Constitutional PresidencySkowronek, Presidency in Political TimeGoldsmith, The Terror PresidencyA course packet of articles and essays GOV 312L • Iss & Policies In Amer Gov-Hon 38698 • Spring 2010 Meets MW 3:30PM-5:00PM UTC 3 104 show description
Government 312L satisfies the second half of the mandated six hours of government that every UT student must take  Course covers analysis of varying topics concerned with American political institutions and policies, including the United States Constitution, and assumes basic knowledge of government from GOV 310L, which is a prerequiste  May be taken for credit only once  GOV 370L • President, Congress, And Court 38966 • Spring 2010 Meets MW 5:00PM-6:30PM MEZ B0 306 show description
Prerequisite: Six semester hours of lower-division coursework in government 
GOV 370L • President, Congress, And Court 39295 • Fall 2009 Meets TTH 2:00PM-3:30PM UTC 3 112 show description
GOV 370L • President, Congress, And Court 39435 • Spring 2008 Meets MW 3:00PM-4:30PM PAR 203 show description
GOV 312L • Iss & Policies In Am Gov-Hon-W 38615-38620 • Spring 2007 Meets MW 11:00AM-12:00PM MEZ B0 306 show description
Government 312L satisfies the second half of the mandated six hours of government that every UT student must take  Course covers analysis of varying topics concerned with American political institutions and policies, including the United States Constitution, and assumes basic knowledge of government from GOV 310L, which is a prerequiste  May be taken for credit only once  GOV 312L • Iss & Policies In Am Gov-Hon-W 37600-37605 • Spring 2006 Meets MW 11:00AM-12:00PM MEZ B0 306 show description
Government 312L satisfies the second half of the mandated six hours of government that every UT student must take  Course covers analysis of varying topics concerned with American political institutions and policies, including the United States Constitution, and assumes basic knowledge of government from GOV 310L, which is a prerequiste  May be taken for credit only once  GOV 312L • Iss & Policies In Am Gov-Hon-W 34900-34905 • Spring 2004 Meets MW 11:00AM-12:00PM BUR 134 show description
Government 312L satisfies the second half of the mandated six hours of government that every UT student must take  Course covers analysis of varying topics concerned with American political institutions and policies, including the United States Constitution, and assumes basic knowledge of government from GOV 310L, which is a prerequiste  May be taken for credit only once  GOV 312L • Iss & Policies In Am Gov-Hon-W 34495-34500 • Spring 2003 Meets MW 11:00AM-12:00PM UTC 1 130 show description
Government 312L satisfies the second half of the mandated six hours of government that every UT student must take  Course covers analysis of varying topics concerned with American political institutions and policies, including the United States Constitution, and assumes basic knowledge of government from GOV 310L, which is a prerequiste  May be taken for credit only once  Publications
Tulis, JK (2011), "Plausible Futures," in Dunn, Charles W  (ed ) The Presidency in the Twenty-First Century, University Press of Kentucky Tulis, J K  and Macedo, S  (2010) The Limits of Constitutional Democracy, Princeton University Press Tulis, J K  and Macedo, S  (2010) "Constitutional Boundaries," in The Limits of Constitutional Democracy, Princeton University Press Tulis, JK (2010), "The Possibility of Constitutional Statesmanship," in Tulis, JK and Macedo, S (eds ) The Limits of Constitutional Democracy, Princeton University Press Tulis, J  (2009) The Constitutional Presidency  Johns Hopkins University Press Tulis, J  (2009) Impeachment in the Constitutional Order  In J  Tulis & J M  Bessette (Eds ), The Constitutional Presidency  Johns Hopkins University Press Tulis, J  & Bessette, J M  (2009) On the Constitution, Politics, and the Presidency  In J  Tulis & J M  Bessette (Eds ), The Constitutional Presidency  Johns Hopkins University Press Tulis, J (and Bessette, J M) (2010) The Presidency in the Constitutional Order: Historical Perspectives, Reissued Classics Series, Transaction Publishers,Tulis, J and Bessette, J M  (2010, "Introduction to the Transaction Edition," The Presidency in the Constitutional Order: Historical Perspectives, Transaction Publishers 
Tulis, JK, (2009) "The Two Constitutional Presidencies," in Nelson, Michael (ed ) The Presidency in the Political System, Congressional Quarterly Press Tulis, J  & Mellow, N  (2007) Andrew Johnson and the Politics of Failure  In S  Skowronek & M  Glassman (Eds ), Formative Acts: Reckoning with Agency in American Politics  Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press Tulis, J  (2007, September) The Rhetorical Presidency in Retrospect  Critical Review: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Politics and Society, 19(2&3)  Curriculum Vitae



ground_truth: Legacies of Losing in American Politics and an expanded edition of The Rhetorical Presidency in the Princeton Classics series.

prompt_front: Now, answer the following question based on the text below, only give me the answer and do not output any other words.

Question: What did the court in In re Ferguson conclude about the transformation prong of the Bilski test?

Read the following text and answer briefly.

Context 3: ’’) 55 No  2009-005786 (B P A I  July 31, 2009) 
48 2009 WL 1084412, *1 (E D  Tex  March 31, 2009) 
56 Id  at 7  See also Ex parte Dickerson, No  2009-001172 at 49 Citing Bilski, 545 F 3d at 959 n  23 
16 (B P A I  July 9, 2009) (holding claims that ‘‘recite a comput- 50 No  2009-009098 (B P A I  Aug  31, 2009) 
erized method which includes a step of outputting information from a computer       are tied to a particular machine or appa- 52 No  2008-005348 (B P A I  Aug  17, 2009) 
PATENT, TRADEMARK & COPYRIGHT JOURNAL implemented methods ineligible under the Bilski test transformation test applied to this type of claim 63 because the claims failed to tie the method steps to any Then, applying the Bilski test, the board concluded that concrete parts, devices, or combinations of devices  For the claim did not qualify  According to the board, the example, in Ex parte Holtz,57 the board found ineligible under Section 101 a ‘‘method for comparing file tree de-scriptions’’ because the claim ‘‘obtains data (a file struc- does not transform physical subject matter and is not ture), compares data (file structures), generates a tied to a particular machine        Limiting the claims change log, and optimizes the change log without tying to computer readable media does not add any practi- these steps to any concrete parts, devices, or combina- cal limitation to the scope of the claim  Such a field- tions of devices’’ and the ‘‘file structures’’ did not repre- of-use limitation is insufficient to render an other- Similarly, in Ex parte Gutta,58 the board held ineli- gible under § 101 a ‘‘method for identifying one or moremean items for a plurality of items       having a sym- II  The Current Scope of Patent Eligibility bolic value of a symbolic attribute,’’ concluding that the These recent cases establish that some types of meth- claim ‘‘computes a variance and selects a mean item ods are clearly patent-eligible under Section 101, others without tying these steps to any concrete parts, devices, clearly are not eligible, and yet others may be depend- or combinations of devices’’ and ‘‘symbolic values are ing on how they are described and claimed 
neither physical objects nor do they represent physicalobjects ’’ First, the eligibility of system and apparatus claims is largely unaffected by the Bilski decision, with the ca- In contrast to the district court’s decision in Cyber- veat that such claims may be more closely scrutinized source Corp , discussed supra, in a recent board deci- for compliance with Diamond v  Diehr and Gottschalk sion, Ex parte Bodin,59 ‘‘a computer program product’’ v  Benson, which prohibit patenting of a claim directed was found to be patent-eligible subject matter as being to ‘‘laws of nature, natural phenomena, [or] abstract embodied in a ‘‘computer readable medium ’’ Here, the board considered whether the phrase ‘‘recorded on the Also, methods that are performed at least in part by a recording medium’’ as it is recited in the body of the machine qualify for patent eligibility under Section 101 
claims was the same as ‘‘recorded on a computer- Thus, for example, some computer-implemented and readable medium ’’ Acknowledging the differences be- software-related inventions remain patentable as long tween a statutory claim to a data structure stored on a as they are properly described and claimed as being computer readable medium compared to a nonstatutory performed by a computer or computer components 
claim to a data structure that referred to ideas reflected The tie to a machine, however, cannot merely be im- in nonstatutory processes, the board stated: ‘‘[w]hen plicit based upon the description and context of the ap- functional descriptive material is recorded on some plication or general language in the preamble of the computer-readable medium, it becomes structurally claim  Instead, the use of a machine to perform one or and functionally interrelated to the medium and will be more of the claimed functions must be expressly de- statutory in most cases since use of technology permits scribed in the body of the claim so as to be a meaning- the function of the descriptive material to be real- ful limitation on the claim  If a method claim can be read in such a way that all functions can be performed Similarly, in Ex parte Azuma,61 a claim to a ‘‘com- by a human, it will likely not pass the machine prong of puter program product       comprising: a computer us- able medium’’ was found to be directed to statutory The ‘‘Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluat- subject matter under § 101 because the language ‘‘com- ing Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U S C  § 101’’ re- puter usable medium’’ referred to tangible storage me- cently issued by the Patent and Trademark Office con- dia, such as a server, floppy drive, main memory and firm that the recitation of a general purpose computer hard disk as disclosed by appellant’s specification, and is sufficient to satisfy Section 101 where the general did not ‘‘implicate the use of a carrier wave ’’ purpose computer is ‘‘programmed to perform the pro- In an older decision, Ex parte Cornea-Hasegan,62 cess steps,       in effect, becom[ing] a special purpose however, the Board seemingly came to the opposite conclusion, holding that a claim reciting ‘‘a computer Concerning data transformation, there seems to be readable media including program instructions which agreement of the Federal Circuit and at least one dis- when executed by a processor cause the processor to trict court that a method that is both limited to transfor- perform’’ a series of steps was not patent-eligible under mation of specific data and limited to a visual depiction Bilski  The board first determined that ‘‘analysis of a representing specific objects or substances qualifies un- ‘manufacture’ claim and a ‘process’ claim is the sameunder 63 Id  at 11 
57 No  2008-004440 at 12-13 (B P A I  Aug  24, 2009) 
65 Diamond v  Diehr, 450 U S  175, 185, 205 USPQ 488 58 No  2008-004366 at 10-11 (B P A I  Aug  10, 2009) 
(1980); Gottschalk v  Benson, 409 U S  63, 67, 175 USPQ 673 59 No  2009-002913 (B P A I  Aug  5, 2009) 
60 Id  at 10 (comparing In re Lowry, 32 F 3d 1579, 1583-84, 66 ‘‘Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Sub- 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed  Cir  1994) to In re Warmerdam, 33 F 3d ject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U S C  § 101,’’ U S  Patent and 1354, 1361-62, 31 USPQ2d 1754 (Fed  Cir  1994)) 
Trademark Office, Aug  24, 2009, at 6 (78 PTCJ 530, 8/28/09) 
61 No  2009-003902 at 10 (B P A I  Sept  14, 2009) 
The authors’ recent experiences with examiners suggest that 62 No  2008-004742 (B P A I  Jan  13, 2009) 
the examiners are following these instructions 
der Section 101 67 Thus, claims analogous to those in In Concerning claims directed to computer program re Abele68 in which ‘‘data clearly represented physical products, one district court has held that appending ‘‘A and tangible objects, namely the structure of bones, or- computer readable media including program instruc- gans, and other body tissues [so as to recite] the trans- tions’’ to an otherwise non-statutory process claim is in- formation of that raw data into a particular visual depic- sufficient to make it statutory 72 The board has also tion of a physical object on a display’’ are patent- held ineligible claims to ‘‘a computer readable me- dia ’’73 The board has, however, also upheld the eligibil-ity of ‘‘a computer program product’’ as being embod- ied in a computer readable medium 74 Given these in- Bilski has had a significant impact in eliminating consistent decisions, the patent eligibility of claims in patent protection for inventions that are performed en- tirely by humans or can be interpreted as such if read Concerning claims directed to generalized computer broadly  This includes claims that describe processes processing functions, several Board decisions suggest for creating or manipulating legal and financial docu- that, absent a tie to a concrete real-world application, ments and relationships  In this area in particular, many such claims are likely to be deemed an ‘‘algorithm’’ un- pending applications filed prior to Bilski are no longer der Benson and therefore held to be non-statutory  75 patent-eligible, and many issued patents are no longer Any recitation of a specific field of use for the claimed valid  This retroactive impact of the Bilski decision is process or use of the outcome of such processes are troubling, given the investment in these patents and ap- also more likely to be found ‘‘field-of-use’’ or ‘‘post- plications, which have now been rendered essentially solution activity’’ limitations insufficient to render the worthless despite the suggestion in the Federal Circuit’s claim patent-eligible  Thus, the more tied a claimed pro- earlier State Street decision, now overruled, that such cess is to tangible results or particular applications (not claims qualified for patent protection 
just fields of use), the more likely it is to qualify under Inventions that do not fit within the four statutory categories are also not patent-eligible  The Federal Cir-cuit and the board have rejected claims directed to ‘‘a III  Presenting and Claiming Methods in Patent signal,’’ ‘‘a paradigm,’’ ‘‘a user interface’’ and ‘‘a corr-elator’’ on the basis that these items did not qualify as a ‘‘machine, manufacture, composition of matter or pro- Several strategies for describing and claiming meth- cess’’ under § 101  70 There is also an increasing focus ods or processes in patent applications may avoid or on the tangibility of the claimed invention in that, to minimize potential Section 101 problems 
qualify as a ‘‘machine’’ or ‘‘manufacture’’ under Section First, the description provided in a patent application should include well-defined steps or functions associ-ated with method or process  For example, when the claims include ‘‘initiating’’ method steps, a description Remaining areas of uncertainty concerning the scope of well-defined physical steps or functions for initiating of Section 101 include (1) what qualifies under Bilski as should be provided, and a concrete item, machine, de- a ‘‘transformation of an article or data,’’ (2) whether vice, or component that is responsible for the initiating claims to computer programs (Beauregard claims) function should be identified  For claiming ‘‘identify- qualify, and (3) whether internal computer processing ing’’ method steps, provide specific parameters for functionality not tied to a specific application or tan- making the identification, such as according to a speci- fied measurement 76 Where data is involved, the source Concerning data transformation, other than Abele- and type of data should be specified 
style claims discussed above, what qualifies as a data or Also, drawings should be provided that depict the article transformation remains unclear  Claims that concrete item, device, component or combination have been held not to meet the transformation prong in- thereof, and each method or process step or function clude claims directed to the creation or manipulation of should be linked expressly to at least one item, device data representing an intangible series of rights and ob- or component in the drawings that performs the step or ligations (e g , credit card data) and claims directed to function  Broadening language indicating that other the transformation or manipulation of legal obligations components may also be used to perform the function and relationships  Beyond these specific examples, it is may also be included to avoid an unduly narrow inter- difficult to predict what will or will not qualify as a data or article transformation under Bilski 
The claims should affirmatively claim the device, ma- chine or component performing each step or function 
67 In re Bilski, 545 F 3d at 963; Research Corporation Tech- For computer or software-related inventions, the de- nologies, 2009 WL 2413623 at *9 
scription should specify that the software functionality 68 The claimed process involved graphically displaying vari- ances of data from average values wherein the data was X-rayattenuation data produced in a two dimensional field by a com- 72 Cybersource Corp , 620 F  Supp  2d at 1080 
puted tomography scanner  See In re Bilski, 545 F 3d at 962- 73 Cornea-Hasegan, No  2008-004742 
74 Ex parte Bodin, No  2009-002913 (B P A I  Aug  5, 2009) 
69 In re Bilski, 545 F 3d at 963 
75 E g , Ex parte Greene, No  2008-004073 (B P A I  Apr  24, 70 In re Nuijten 500 F 3d 1346, 1357, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed 
2009); Daughtrey, No  2008-000202; Ex parte Arning, No 
Cir  2007) (74 PTCJ 631, 9/28/07) (signal); In re Ferguson, 558 2008-003008 (B P A I  Mar  30, 2009); Cybersource Corp , 620 F 3d 1359, 1366, 90 USPQ2d 1035 (Fed  Cir  2009) (77 PTCJ F  Supp 2d at 1080 (concerning claim 2) 
489, 3/13/09) (paradigm); Ex parte Daughtrey, No  2008- 76 See Brief of American Bar Association as Amicus Curiae 000202 (B P A I  Apr  8, 2009) (user interface); Ex parte Laba- Supporting Respondent, Bilski v  Kappos, No  08-964, ABA die, No  2008-004310 (B P A I  May 6, 2009) (correlator) 
Amicus Br  at 12-13 (U S  amicus brief filed Oct  2, 2009) (78 71 E g , Nuijten, 500 F 3d at 1356-7 
PATENT, TRADEMARK & COPYRIGHT JOURNAL is performed by a computer or computer components 
patent or published application, the option of importing Specificity as to the type of computer component per- subject matter into the specification is limited to ‘‘non- forming each function may be helpful in establishing essential’’ subject matter  In other words, the specifica- eligibility under the Bilski test 
tion can only be amended to disclose a machine for per-forming process steps as long as one skilled in the art IV  Fixing Pre-Bilski Applications to Meet the New would recognize from the original disclosure that the process is implemented by a machine  The key in mak- For patent applications filed prior to the Bilski deci- ing this type of amendment is avoiding (or overcoming) sion, it can be challenging to meet the new require- a rejection under 35 U S C  § 112, para  1, for lack of ments for patent eligibility, particularly when no ma- chine or transformations were expressly described in If incorporation by reference is not an option, a patent applicant may submit evidence, such as a decla- In some cases, there may be sufficient explicit de- ration by the inventor or a duly qualified technical ex- scription of a machine, e g , a computer, such that the pert, demonstrating that one skilled in the art would un- machine can be added into the body of the claims  For derstand the disclosed method to be one performed by example, patent applications for computer-related in- a machine  Unlike attorney argument, which can be dis- ventions sometimes contain a generic description of regarded, such evidence must be considered by the ex- computers that are used to perform the claimed method, and such a generic description may be suffi- One other option is to reformat the claims  Since Bil- cient to impart patent eligibility to the claims when the ski ostensibly does not apply to system and apparatus general-purpose computer is programmed to become a claims, in some instances it may be possible for an ap- plicant to convert his method claims into system claims For patent applications lacking in an explicit descrip- to avoid application of the Bilski test  This strategy, tion of any machine, however, the application may in- however, is unlikely to succeed where the patent speci- corporate by reference patents or publications that can fication does not describe such a system for implement- be used to bolster the specification and provide support ing the method and therefore does not provide the req- for the requisite claim amendments  When an applica- uisite disclosure of the claimed invention under Section tion incorporates by reference a U S  patent or pub- lished U S  patent application, any description from the incorporated references, whether or not the subject The future of the Bilski machine-or-transformation matter is ‘‘essential’’ to support the claims, may be im- test now rests with the Supreme Court  Regardless of ported into the specification  This option may enable the outcome of the appeal, however, it is clear that the importation of the requisite description of a machine, scope of statutory subject matter under Section 101 has which can then also be recited in the claims 77 When been narrowed  The Supreme Court now has a chance the document incorporated by reference is not a U S 
to clarify what has been excluded; it may even reject ormodify the Bilski machine-or-transformation test  How 77 Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, Eighth Ed , Rev 
this will affect the development and protection of cur- 7/2008, at § 608 01(P); see also 37 C F R  § 1 57 
rent and future technologies remains to be seen 
Source: http://www dorsey com/files/upload/luedke_bna_patent_journal_nov09 pdf
(resolução 404 2012 retificação 19062012)
RESOLUÇÃO Nº 404 , DE 12 DE JUNHO DE 2012 Dispõe sobre padronização dos procedimentos administrativos na lavratura de Auto de Infração, na expedição de notificação de autuação e de notificação de penalidade de multa e de advertência, por infração de responsabilidade de proprietário e de condutor de veículo e da identificação de condutor infrator, e dá outras providências 
Cheloidi e cicatrici ipertrofiche in dermatologia
a cura del dr  Antonio Del Sorbo - Specialista in Dermatologia e Venereologia antoniodelsorbo@libero it I Cheloidi di Alibert A volte una ferita anche apparentemente banale, guarisce lasciando una cicatrice voluminosa, rossastra e soprattutto antiestetica  I cheloidi sono cicatrici abnormi che possono far seguito a intervento chirurgico (es: tiroide, mammella, etc) e questo u



ground_truth: It required the transformation to be limited to specific data and a visual depiction representing specific objects or substances.