Which way is Congress going on patent reform; the 101 question.
A post related to Ariosa v. Sequenom concludes with the following text:
If the concern is that the inventions would be obvious or are not enabled or are not fully within the grasp of the inventor, there are other sections of the statute that could be used to deny an applicant a patent. But to deny patentability for a patent to an invention that is so clearly useful to so many people does not fulfill the requirement of the Constitution to promote the useful arts.
If the courts are unwilling to listen to the scientists and the patent community as to the effects these positions have on innovation, perhaps it is time to engage the legislators and the White House to clarify the law to ensure that we continue to promote the useful sciences.
one notes, currently, to the extent Congress and the White House are contemplating patent law, they are interested in curbing the power of patentees, not expanding the power.
link to Courts are making bad patent law
UPDATE: 8/27/2015. Amicus brief for en banc review