Look, you're not going to be able to get software categorically excluded from patentability. The Supreme Court has already said it's against categorical exceptions to patentability.
What you need to do is articulate why software patents are different from patents on say mechanical devices, and why those distinctions should render software, or at least a broad class of software, unpatentable.
What are those acronyms developers like to use? rtfm, utsl, etc.? :)
There is a link to the court rules in the article. This is the definitive source, besides knowing clerks personally.
There is some cynicism in this thread about whether this rehearing will amount to anything but I think this shows the system is definitely aware of what the media is saying about software patents, and what you are saying in online forums. Does the USPTO read stackexchange? I think we all know the answer to that.
The link to the court rules [1] is a good start, but is not actionable unless the reader is a lawyer. You sound like a lawyer, so that may be fine for you, but most of the HN audience is comprised of non-lawyers.
If you are indeed a lawyer, would you (or any other lawyer here) be willing to draft a template that software engineers can customize (the interest section), sign, and mail to the court?
Bilski v Kappos is a case that dealt with similar subject matter. The FSF[2], SFLC[3], Red Hat[4], and Google [5] filed amicus curiae briefs lamenting software patents. Surely there is something reusable here, especially from Red Hat pages 12-19.
Have you even looked at the rules? Paper sizes, fonts, lengths, deadlines. Do you need to be a lawyer to understand rules like those?
You are only interested in what they say about amicus briefs.
Anyway, I'm not even sure you can file amicus briefs for this case as a developer worried about software patents. But there's no harm in reading those rules. They are boring but that's what everyone has to follow. If you want to send stuff to the court, then you'd be wise to read those rules first. Take the initiative. Ask questions.
Maybe some weathly developers will call their lawyers and ask them what can be done? What are the chances of that?
Does anyone know what such a letter should look like? To what address should they be sent?