(ℹ) Join us now at the IRC channel | ䷉ Find the plain text version at this address (HTTP) or in Gemini (how to use Gemini) with a full GemText version.
| *psydroid2 has quit (connection closed) | Aug 01 00:53 | |
| *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytes | Aug 01 01:38 | |
| *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytes | Aug 01 01:46 | |
| *schestowitz-TR2 has quit (Connection closed) | Aug 01 01:50 | |
| *schestowitz-TR2 has quit (connection closed) | Aug 01 01:50 | |
| *schestowitz-TR (~acer-box@3stvfjh5iuw88.irc) has joined #techbytes | Aug 01 01:50 | |
| *schestowitz-TR (~acer-box@freenode/user/schestowitz) has joined #techbytes | Aug 01 01:50 | |
| *u-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) | Aug 01 02:55 | |
| *u-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@h9w2ackdz5nh2.irc) has joined #techbytes | Aug 01 02:56 | |
| *schestowitz-TR has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Aug 01 03:14 | |
| *schestowitz-TR has quit (Ping timeout: 120 seconds) | Aug 01 03:15 | |
| *libertybox has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Aug 01 03:17 | |
| *libertybox_ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Aug 01 03:17 | |
| *libertybox__ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Aug 01 03:17 | |
| *parsifal (~parsifal@aahfbjmj4hann.irc) has joined #techbytes | Aug 01 05:57 | |
| *parsifal has quit (Quit: Leaving) | Aug 01 06:03 | |
| *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytes | Aug 01 06:24 | |
| *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytes | Aug 01 06:28 | |
| *psydroid2 (~psydroid@u8ftxtfux23wk.irc) has joined #techbytes | Aug 01 07:00 | |
| schestowitz[TR] | <li> | Aug 01 08:29 |
|---|---|---|
| schestowitz[TR] | <h5><a href="https://www.omglinux.com/thunderbird-gnome-theme/">Thunderbird User Who Loves GNOME? Check Out This Theme</a></h5> | Aug 01 08:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <blockquote> | Aug 01 08:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <p>The current version of the Thunderbird GNOME Theme is designed to work with the recent Thunderbird 115 “Supernova” release, and accommodates many of the various UI changes/enhancements the update sports.</p> | Aug 01 08:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | </blockquote> | Aug 01 08:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | </li> | Aug 01 08:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | Aug 01 08:29 | |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.omglinux.com | Thunderbird User Who Loves GNOME? Check Out This Theme - OMG! Linux | Aug 01 08:29 | |
| *libertybox (~schestowitz_log@3stvfjh5iuw88.irc) has joined #techbytes | Aug 01 09:06 | |
| *libertybox_ (~schestowitz_log@3stvfjh5iuw88.irc) has joined #techbytes | Aug 01 09:06 | |
| *libertybox__ (~schestowitz_log@3stvfjh5iuw88.irc) has joined #techbytes | Aug 01 09:06 | |
| *schestowitz-TR (~acer-box@3stvfjh5iuw88.irc) has joined #techbytes | Aug 01 09:06 | |
| *schestowitz-TR (~acer-box@freenode/user/schestowitz) has joined #techbytes | Aug 01 09:06 | |
| *Techrights-sec2 (~quassel@3stvfjh5iuw88.irc) has joined #techbytes | Aug 01 09:07 | |
| *roy_ (~quassel@3stvfjh5iuw88.irc) has joined #techbytes | Aug 01 09:07 | |
| *Techrights-sec (~quassel@freenode-ne9tjv.71tb.6ao7.hij1op.IP) has joined #techbytes | Aug 01 09:08 | |
| *311D1WRO1 (~quassel@freenode-ne9tjv.71tb.6ao7.hij1op.IP) has joined #techbytes | Aug 01 09:08 | |
| *roy has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Aug 01 09:08 | |
| *Techrights-sec has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Aug 01 09:08 | |
| *311DRIY76 has quit (Ping timeout: 120 seconds) | Aug 01 09:09 | |
| *208ACUMLZ has quit (Ping timeout: 120 seconds) | Aug 01 09:09 | |
| schestowitz[TR] | " Leidos teams up with Microsoft to push on generative AI in public sector " | Aug 01 11:35 |
| schestowitz[TR] | x https://fedscoop.com/leidos-teams-up-with-microsoft-on-public-sector-generative-ai/ | Aug 01 11:35 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-Leidos teams up with Microsoft to push on generative AI in public sector | FedScoop | Aug 01 11:35 | |
| schestowitz[TR] | x https://qz.com/final-how-ey-is-using-generative-ai-in-its-business-1850689703 | Aug 01 11:35 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-qz.com | How EY is using generative AI in its business | Aug 01 11:35 | |
| *psydroid2 has quit (Quit: Leaving) | Aug 01 12:38 | |
| *psydroid2 (~psydroid@u8ftxtfux23wk.irc) has joined #techbytes | Aug 01 12:38 | |
| *psydroid2 has quit (Quit: Leaving) | Aug 01 12:39 | |
| *psydroid2 (~psydroid@u8ftxtfux23wk.irc) has joined #techbytes | Aug 01 12:39 | |
| *psydroid2 has quit (connection closed) | Aug 01 12:43 | |
| *psydroid2 (~psydroid@u8ftxtfux23wk.irc) has joined #techbytes | Aug 01 12:43 | |
| *psydroid2 has quit (Quit: Leaving) | Aug 01 12:44 | |
| *psydroid2 (~psydroid@u8ftxtfux23wk.irc) has joined #techbytes | Aug 01 12:44 | |
| *Noisytoot has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Aug 01 14:35 | |
| *Noisytoot (~noisytoot@tkbibjhmbkvb8.irc) has joined #techbytes | Aug 01 14:36 | |
| *u-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) | Aug 01 15:22 | |
| *u-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@h9w2ackdz5nh2.irc) has joined #techbytes | Aug 01 15:23 | |
| *psydroid2 has quit (Quit: Leaving) | Aug 01 15:41 | |
| *Noisytoot has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Aug 01 16:21 | |
| *Noisytoot (~noisytoot@tkbibjhmbkvb8.irc) has joined #techbytes | Aug 01 16:30 | |
| *Noisytoot has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Aug 01 16:38 | |
| *Noisytoot (~noisytoot@tkbibjhmbkvb8.irc) has joined #techbytes | Aug 01 16:39 | |
| *Noisytoot has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Aug 01 16:42 | |
| *Noisytoot (~noisytoot@tkbibjhmbkvb8.irc) has joined #techbytes | Aug 01 16:44 | |
| *Noisytoot has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Aug 01 16:48 | |
| *parsifal (~parsifal@uuar9r28yasyu.irc) has joined #techbytes | Aug 01 16:51 | |
| *parsifal has quit (Quit: Leaving) | Aug 01 16:54 | |
| *parsifal (~parsifal@uuar9r28yasyu.irc) has joined #techbytes | Aug 01 16:54 | |
| *Noisytoot (~noisytoot@tkbibjhmbkvb8.irc) has joined #techbytes | Aug 01 17:01 | |
| *Noisytoot has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Aug 01 17:11 | |
| *Noisytoot (~noisytoot@tkbibjhmbkvb8.irc) has joined #techbytes | Aug 01 17:18 | |
| *u-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) | Aug 01 18:25 | |
| *u-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@h9w2ackdz5nh2.irc) has joined #techbytes | Aug 01 18:26 | |
| *parsifal has quit (Quit: Leaving) | Aug 01 21:00 | |
| *jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Aug 01 21:26 | |
| schestowitz[TR] | ☞ http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/07/board-of-appeal-poised-on-brink-of.html?showComment=1690874913851#c3056077849671049725 | Aug 01 21:31 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Board of Appeal poised on the brink of a referral on description amendments (T 56/21) - The IPKat | Aug 01 21:32 | |
| schestowitz[TR] | "Dear MaxDrei,<br /><br />EPO may be right that applicant has only itself to blame if the initial claim lacks novelty because it is very broad – typically purely functional definition or no field-of-use limitation - and if applicant has not provided in the original application suitable fallback positions including specific embodiments and/or field-of-use limitations and disclosed in the description relevant technical effects to su | Aug 01 21:32 |
| schestowitz[TR] | pport inventive step.<br /><br />Applicants when drafting an application start from a blank page, they have to assess the risks of drafting strategies and cannot expect babysitting from the patent office.<br /><br />The description adaptation requirement is different in that unlike a novelty objection, which is fact-based (the claim is anticipated by a piece of prior art), it is an EPO creature which relies on a hypothetical infring | Aug 01 21:32 |
| schestowitz[TR] | ement assessment but entails a real risk of inadmissible new matter and revocation in opposition or court proceedings.<br /><br />My suggestion would be to confront the EPO to the potential implications of their practice : it is only justified according to a hypothetical infringement scenario by a concern for legal certainty in court proceedings, but it does generate serious risks for the validity of the patent. In view of this risk | Aug 01 21:32 |
| schestowitz[TR] | , I think the request would be entirely legitimate. If the ED cannot demonstrate that the adaptation is risk-free, then it is illegitimate for the EPO to require it from applicant.<br /><br />And if the ED turns down the request, applicant can claim that it violates their right to be heard and possibly submit a complaint.<br />" | Aug 01 21:32 |
| schestowitz[TR] | "If the EPO can influence the national court's ...</a></h5><blockquote>If the EPO can influence the national court's claim interpretation by requiring an amendment of the claims, then the EPO can influence the national court's claim interpretation by requiring an amendment of the description. There is simply no difference.<br /><br />Again, what the EPO does is examine whether the application (description, claims, drawings) complies | Aug 01 21:32 |
| schestowitz[TR] | with the EPC. If it does comply, then the EPO grants a patent. If it does not, then it is the applicant's responsibility to make appropriate amendments to the application (description, claims, drawings).<br /><br />So the EPO does not examine only the claims. It examines the application (description, claims, drawings).<br /><br />If you mean that the EPO cannot base the refusal of an application on national case law on claim interp | Aug 01 21:32 |
| schestowitz[TR] | retation, then sure. But show me one such refusal.<br /><br />If the granted patent application is in such a good shape that no expert evidence is required to ascertain the meaning of the claims, then everybody wins. I am under no illusion that this can be achieved by adapting the description to the claims or vice versa, but removing conflicts is a start. Improved legal certainty is a good thing. This is why Art. 84 exists. The appl | Aug 01 21:32 |
| schestowitz[TR] | ication of Art. 84 by the EPO in no way violates the independence of national courts.<br /><br />The application of Art. 69(1) in EPO proceedings is not critical here (and Art. 69(2) definitely cannot be applied). The EPO has the general rule that any passage of a document should be interpreted in the light of the document as a whole. I do agree that it would be good if the EPO used one clearly pronounced standard of claim interpret | Aug 01 21:32 |
| schestowitz[TR] | ation, and ideally the EPO and the national courts should use the same standard for validity, but this is a diferent topic." | Aug 01 21:32 |
| schestowitz[TR] | "Mr Hagel, your comment reminds me of the notorious...</a></h5><blockquote>Mr Hagel, your comment reminds me of the notorious Bermuda Triangle found in prosecution before the EPO. The claim lacks novelty, and must be amended. But whatever amendment Applicant comes forward with is deemed to offend Art 84 or Art 123(2) EPC, or both. EPO shrugs its shoulders and declares that Applicant has only itself to blame, that Applicant finds its | Aug 01 21:33 |
| schestowitz[TR] | elf in an inescapable trap (another of those!) purely because it declined to pay for competent drafting of the initial patent application as filed.<br /><br />I thought that there would never be a more perfect real life example of CATCH 22 than the 123(2)/123(3) inescapable trap. But the 54/84/123(2) Bermuda Triangle in which patent applications disappear runs it close. Who would have thought that it could come to this, given the mi | Aug 01 21:33 |
| schestowitz[TR] | ssion statement of the EPO under the EPC, to grant useful patents with a scope commensurate with the contribution to the art, and thereby promote the progress of the useful arts, to the benefit of all humanity." | Aug 01 21:33 |
| schestowitz[TR] | "Few arguments make sense if they are misquoted. If...</a></h5><blockquote>Few arguments make sense if they are misquoted. If you re-read my original comment, you will see that my argument was that the EPO's remit does not extend to tying the hands of national courts <b>on matters of claim interpretation</b>.<br /><br />Is that an argument with which you can now agree? If not, why not?<br /><br />Of course the EPO has a role in det | Aug 01 21:33 |
| schestowitz[TR] | ermining the <i>wording</i> of the claims of a patent. But that is a completely different matter to <b>interpreting</b> the wording of the patent claims.<br /><br />The EPO's description adaptation practice can, and is indeed designed to, force (onto the national courts) a very specific interpretation of the wording of the claims as granted. That outcome is problematic enough on its own. However, it is made worse by the fact that th | Aug 01 21:33 |
| schestowitz[TR] | e EPO:<br />(a) does not (routinely) apply the principles of Article 69(1) EPC when interpreting the language of the claims;<br />(b) rarely, if ever, seeks the opinion of experts upon the meaning of certain terms used in the claims;<br />(c) <b>never</b> considers Article 69(2) EPC when interpreting the language of the claims; and<br />(d) <b>never</b> considers whether amendments to the description might alter the interpretation o | Aug 01 21:33 |
| schestowitz[TR] | f the language of the claims.<br /><br />If left to their own devices, national courts would interpret the claims by considering not only Article 69(1) and (2) EPC but likely also expert evidence on the meaning of certain terms. So what purpose does it serve for the EPO to demand amendments to the description that can effectively shortcut the national court's deliberations, and force an interpretation of the claims that takes <b>non | Aug 01 21:33 |
| schestowitz[TR] | e</b> of the above into account? At least in some cases, would this not render Article 69 EPC effectively otiose?" | Aug 01 21:33 |
| schestowitz[TR] | "The argument that the EPO may not "tie the hands of national courts" makes no sense.<br /><br />The whole purpose of the EPO's granting proceduire is to grant a patent on a text which complies with the requirements of the EPC. The EPO is obliged to insist on a text that meets the requirements, and obviously any amendments made to the text, whether to the description or the claims, will "tie the hands of the national | Aug 01 21:33 |
| schestowitz[TR] | courts". Or to put it differently: the text of the patent as granted determines the (national) legal rights conferred by the patent. It makes no sense to argue that the EPO has no business in shaping those rights. The EPO was created to do just that.<br /><br />As to your other remarks, whether a "clear claim" precludes taking into account the description is an interesting question. One point of view is that the claim | Aug 01 21:33 |
| schestowitz[TR] | should always be interpreted in the light of the application/patent as a whole for novelty, inventive step, sufficiency. This does not contradict the Art. 84 requirement that the claim must be clear from its wording alone.<br /><br />In the end, a claim will always have grey areas which in later opposition, validity or infringement proceedings may need to be elucidated. In that case it only makes sense to look into the description | Aug 01 21:33 |
| schestowitz[TR] | and drawings for help, even if the granted claim was "clear" within the meaning of Art. 84 (which is a question which anyway should no longer concern the opposition division or national court)." | Aug 01 21:33 |
| schestowitz[TR] | "According to the press release of the EPO “EPO practice confirmed on adaptation of the description “ dated July 7, 2022, “the support requirement of Article 84 EPC also serves the aim of ensuring legal certainty for national post-grant proceedings.”<br /><br />Let’s take the EPO at its word. To be sure, since the EPO is concerned about legal certainty for national post-grant proceedings, it can but be concerned about 123( | Aug 01 21:33 |
| schestowitz[TR] | 2) issues arising from substantial description amendments before a national court or the UPC. After all, any substantial description amendment is a hazard for the validity of the granted patent because of its potential to raise a new matter issue.<br /><br />Hence this suggestion for a line of argument if you wish to challenge a requirement from the ED to adapt the description to claim amendments, or 71(3) adaptation amendments ente | Aug 01 21:33 |
| schestowitz[TR] | red by the ED : point out that the amendment potentially raises a new matter issue ; and place the burden of proof on the ED to demonstrate that the amendments pass Art 123(2) muster.<br /><br />The recent EWHC decision Ensygnia vs Shell reported on this thread is very much a case in point to show that the new matter issues generated by typical amendments required by the EPO practice, such as the mention that an unclaimed embodimen | Aug 01 21:33 |
| schestowitz[TR] | t is outside the scope of the claims.<br /><br />This line of argument would be all the more justified as the EPO’s assessment can be extraordinarily stringent, as illustrated in decision T 1473/19 revoking a patent for a missing comma in a clause entered in claim 1 by the ED at the 71(3) stage.<br /><br />This line of argument could be used not only to challenge description amendments but also claim amendments as in T 1473/19. A | Aug 01 21:33 |
| schestowitz[TR] | typical claim amendment raising a new matter issue is the deletion of the word “substantially” or “approximately” as instructed by GL F-IV 4.7 (e.g. delete “substantially” in “substantially vertical” when in fact the description does not disclose a strictly vertical geometry).<br /><br />" | Aug 01 21:33 |
| *Now talking on #techbytes | Aug 01 23:46 | |
| *Topic for #techbytes is: Welcome to the official channel of the TechBytes Audiocast | Aug 01 23:46 | |
| *Topic for #techbytes set by schestowitz!~roy@haii6za73zabc.irc at Tue Jun 1 20:21:34 2021 | Aug 01 23:46 | |
| *Now talking on #techbytes | Aug 01 23:47 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.6 | ䷉ find the plain text version at this address (HTTP) or in Gemini (how to use Gemini) with a full GemText version.