USPTO asks for help on "abstract ideas" after Bilski

Groklaw and others comments on USPTOs request for comments and materals how to avoid patents on "abstract ideas" after the Supre Court ruling in the Bilski case. They seem to ask in relation to the "machine-or-transformation test" that the court down-played:

1. What are examples of claims that do not meet the machine-or-transformation test but nevertheless remain patent-eligible because they do not recite an abstract idea?

2. What are examples of claims that meet the machine-or-transformation test but nevertheless are not patent-eligible because they recite an abstract idea?

3. The decision in Bilski suggested that it might be possible to "defin[e] a narrower category or class of patent applications that claim to instruct how business should be conducted," such that the category itself would be unpatentable as "an attempt to patent abstract ideas." Bilski slip op. at 12. Do any such "categories" exist? If so, how does the category itself represent an "attempt to patent abstract ideas?"

I hope the community find lots of good answers. I'll get back with my own thoughts about this soon.
"Comments should be sent to Bilski_Guidance (at) uspto (dot) gov and must be received
by September 27, 2010."