Which way, Alice?

We're all mad here.

Over at Patently-O, Professor Chisum attempts to wring a practice rule out of the Supreme Court's decisions in Alice Corp. and related cases (you can read the full treatment here).  Money quote: 

Hence there are strong grounds for the proposition that a patent claim reaches a safe harbor from Section 101 abstract idea scrutiny, including the Mayo second question for an “inventive concept,” if the claimant establishes that the claim is directed to a solution of a technological problem.  This definition of abstract idea as excluding applied technology accommodates the case law treating pure mathematical statements, economics and finance, and schemes of a non-technical character (“methods of organizing human activity”) as “abstract ideas” that must be include additional elements to achieve patent eligibility (Mayo step two).

Seems reasonable to me.  I guess we'll find out soon enough.  For what it's worth, there's a Software Partnership Meeting coming up next month at the USPTO - so they've got a month to figure out what they're going to do with this problem, at which point they'll tell us (I hope).  In the meantime, the Supreme Court is acting like the Cheshire cat, giving us unhelpful directions and then fading away.

UPDATE

The USPTO has issued preliminary guidelines for examiners to follow in light of the Alice Corp. decision.  My first thought:  that was fast.  More thoughts to follow.