Further Bilski Guidance from the USPTO

In my earlier posting regarding the USPTO's approach to the recent Bilski opinion of the US Supreme Court, I found, like others (see here and here), that the interim guidance for patent examiners, in which USPTO examiners were adviced that "if a claimed method does not meet the machine-or-transformation test, the examiner should reject the claim under section 101" unless the applicant manages "to explain why the claimed method is not related to an abstract idea", sounds as reversal of the burden of proof. Now, there is a report on Brian Flecher's Patentability blog, according to which Robert L. Stoll, Commissioner for Patents at the USPTO, told at the NAPP 2010 Annual Meeting that updated, more detailed interim guidance was in the review and approval process and that he hoped to have it available for use within the next few weeks. Regarding the reversal-of-burden-of-proof issue, he apparently emphasized that it was never the inten…