thillis: mr. blalock? >> what would be required if you were to proceed with pera would be to recognize that national, those ideas should -- one should not be able to rely slowly on the novelty as a basis for privatizing that information and meditate -- obtaining a monopoly. sen. thillis: 15 seconds to rebut? >> that is why we have the rest of the codes. any time you apply a practical ingenuity to nature, you are already into the useful arts. it ino necessary to pull it out at this stage. section 10 three, we know how to do the analysis, how to create combinations and see if it is only a minor improvement or if it is using things we already know how to do. that is already there. you do not need to keep it out of the section 101 level. sen. thillis: you will find that i do debate club in these hearings. if you happen to hear something that you take exception to, raise your pan and we will give you an exception -- a reply. a lot of people criticize pera shat will impede scientific research and innovation. you

thillis: mr. blalock? >> what would be required if you were to proceed with pera would be to recognize that national, those ideas should -- one should not be able to rely slowly on the novelty as a basis for privatizing that information and meditate -- obtaining a monopoly. sen. thillis: 15 seconds to rebut? >> that is why we have the rest of the codes. any time you apply a practical ingenuity to nature, you are already into the useful arts. it is not necessary to pull it out at this stage. section 10 three, we know how to do the analysis, how to create combinations and see if it is only a minor improvement or if it is using things we already know how to do. that is already there. you do not need to keep it out of the section 101 level. sen. thillis: you will find that i do debate club in these hearings. if you happen to hear something that you take exception to, raise your pan and we will give you an exception -- a reply. a lot of people criticize pera as something that will impede scientific research and

thillis: mr. blalock? >> what would be required if you were to proceed with pera would be to recognize that national, those ideas should -- one should not be able to rely slowly on the novelty as a basis for privatizing that information and meditate -- obtaining a monopoly. sen. thillis: 15 seconds to rebut? >> that is why we have the rest of the codes. any time you apply a practical ingenuity to nature, you are already into the useful arts. it is not necessary to pull it out at this stage. section 10 three, we know how to do the analysis, how to create combinations and see if it is only a minor improvement or if it is using things we already know how to do. that is already there. you do not need to keep it out of the section 101 level. sen. thillis: you will find that i do debate club in these hearings. if you happen to hear something that you take exception to, raise your pan and we will give you an exception -- a reply. a lot of people criticize pera as something that will impede scientific research and

thillis: on behalf of the chair, i will turn to our witness panel productions. our first witness is professor of law at the antonin scalia school of law at george mason university. he has published extensively on ip law. next, mark dean, cofounder of a medical device incubator. mr. dean is a coinventor onndreg u.s. patents. then we have david jones, executive director of a coalition of innovative high-technology companies like google, intel, microsoft and adobe. then we will hear from david cap . he is director of the u.s. patent and trademark office. if you all will stand very briefly so we can swear you in. do you swear and affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? saint -- thank you all. you may be seated. >> thank you ranking member tills and members of the subcommittee. in q4 this opportunity to speak with you today about the pressing need for reform of section 1 and why congress should pass01 the patent eligibility restoration. patent eligibility doctrine was converted into something neve

thillis: on behalf of the chair, i will turn to our witness panel productions. our first witness is professor of law at the antonin scalia school of law at george mason university. he has published extensively on ip law. next, mark dean, cofounder of a medical device incubator. mr. dean is a coinventor on two hundred 50 issued and pending u.s. patents. then we have david jones, executive director of a coalition of innovative high-technology companies like google, intel, microsoft and adobe. then we will hear from david cap . he is director of the u.s. patent and trademark office. if you all will stand very briefly so we can swear you in. do you swear and affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? saint -- thank you all. you may be seated. >> thank you ranking member tills and members of the subcommittee. in q4 this opportunity to speak with you today about the pressing need for reform of section 1 and why congress should pass01 the patent eligibility restoration. patent eligibility doctrine was