IRC: #techbytes @ Techrights IRC Network: Wednesday, November 01, 2023

schestowitz

<h5><a href="https://linuxjedi.co.uk/2023/10/31/tigard-and-the-xilinx-xc9500xl-cpld/">Tigard and the Xilinx XC9500XL CPLD</a></h5>

schestowitz

schestowitz

This is a blog post mostly for my reference, as I forget how to do this every time I need to. Tigard is a great little device which exposes an FTDI and gives lots of ports and power options to connect it. I occasionally need to use it for programming Xilinx XC9572XL and similar ICs. This is how to do it with an open source toolchain.

schestowitz

</blockquote>

schestowitz

</li>

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-linuxjedi.co.uk | Tigard and the Xilinx XC9500XL CPLD – LinuxJedi's /dev/null

*u-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)

Nov 01 06:24

schestowitz

<li>

schestowitz

<h5><a href="https://www.databreaches.net/ocr-releases-cybersecurity-video-how-the-hipaa-security-rule-can-help-defend-against-cyber-attacks/">OCR Releases Cybersecurity Video: How the HIPAA Security Rule Can Help Defend Against Cyber-Attacks</a></h5>

schestowitz

schestowitz

This presentation is intended to educate the health care industry on real world cyber-attack trends from OCR breach reports and investigations and explore how implementation of appropriate HIPAA Security Rule safeguards can help detect and mitigate common cyber-attacks. Topics include: [...]

schestowitz

</blockquote>

schestowitz

</li>

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.databreaches.net | OCR Releases Cybersecurity Video: How the HIPAA Security Rule Can Help Defend Against Cyber-Attacks

x https://gizmodo.com/microsoft-releases-windows-11-ai-update-1850975148

*u-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@xrrqsey9gh7ve.irc) has joined #techbytes

Nov 01 06:28

schestowitz

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-gizmodo.com | Windows 11's Latest Update Adds a Little AI to Everything

x https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/technology/siemens-microsoft-join-hands-to-work-on-ai-project/articleshow/104852628.cms

schestowitz

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-economictimes.indiatimes.com | Microsoft: Siemens, Microsoft join hands to work on AI project - The Economic Times

x https://fedscoop.com/microsoft-rolls-out-generative-ai-roadmap-for-government-services/

schestowitz

Nov 01 07:53

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-Microsoft rolls out generative AI roadmap for government services | FedScoop

Nov 01 07:53

*psydroid2 (~psydroid@u8ftxtfux23wk.irc) has joined #techbytes

Nov 01 09:38

schestowitz

http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/10/adding-matter-by-cherry-picking-from.html?showComment=1698775903282#c1034111127191537263

schestowitz

"Please remind me Prima facie you appear to be right as levels of preference do not appear in the EPC. There are indeed lots of things which do not appear in the EPC, but there is case law, and the merit of case law is exactly to interpret the EPC. Some people do agree with certain pieces of case law, other do not agree with the same pieces of case law. Levels of preference can be equated with differen

schestowitz

t lists whereby the same level of preference for different parameters constitute a list. Preferred features constitute a first list, more preferred features constitute a second list and most preferred features constitute a third list. Any mixing between the levels of preference without a pointer results in added matter. In T 2273/10, the board held that the selection carried out is with respect to preferred or non-preferred features, an

schestowitz

d not just preferred features as argued by the proprietor. There is case law on selection from lists, as lists do not appear as such in the EPC. See for example T 2368/16 (selection allowable) which goes itself back to T 1621/16. In T 3050/19 the proprietors/appellants generally criticised a strict application of the concept of selection from several lists, and cited in this respect T 783/09 and the judgment of the British Pa

schestowitz

tents Court in Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Limited v Dr Reddy's Laboratories (UK) Limited [2019] EWHC 92 (Pat). The board did not agree. What has been said about levels of preference also applies to combinations of ranges. There again, ranges do not appear in the EPC, but there is case law about ranges. See for instance T 356/16 in which the selection of various lists was not disclosed as being preferred which is equivalent

schestowitz

to a pointer. In T 1095/18 novelty was given as the opponent cherry-picked features from the disclosure of prior art D1 to come to a lack of novelty. In T 858/17, the board held that already in claim 3 as filed, the selection of a less preferred range out of two ranges has been made."

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Adding matter by cherry-picking from separate embodiments: Philip Morris v BAT ([2023] EWHC 2616 (Pat)) - The IPKat

http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/10/g-221-does-not-permit-armchair.html?showComment=1698757176612#c3485588228039441923

schestowitz

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | G 2/21 does not permit armchair inventing (T 0258/21) - The IPKat

schestowitz

"Forgive me for not giving a well-researched comment, but briefly T1385/15 referrred to G 6/88 saying the guiding principle was as follows: “A claim directed to the use of a known substance for a particular purpose, which is based on a technical effect described in the patent, is to be interpreted as containing this technical effect as a functional technical feature; such a claim is not open to objection under Article 54 (1

schestowitz

) EPC, if this technical characteristic has not been made available to the public before.” This is a very important for interpretation of medical use claims. i.e. the achievement of therapy is directly linked to contribution and distinguishing over the prior art. Therefore it is not surprising that G2/21 is going to have a very limited effect in making things more lenient for therapy-related inventions. The demonstration o

schestowitz

f achievement of therapy is an important aspect of technical effect and sufficiency for a medical use claim, and the system would break down if that was changed."

http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/10/g-221-does-not-permit-armchair.html?showComment=1698837879979#c7381329750803936058

*psydroid2 has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)

Nov 01 12:45

*psydroid2 (~psydroid@u8ftxtfux23wk.irc) has joined #techbytes

Nov 01 12:58

*MinceR gives voice to u-amarsh04 psydroid2

Nov 01 12:59

*psydroid2 has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)

Nov 01 13:10

*psydroid2 (~psydroid@u8ftxtfux23wk.irc) has joined #techbytes

Nov 01 13:10

*psydroid2 has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)

Nov 01 13:15

*psydroid2 (~psydroid@u8ftxtfux23wk.irc) has joined #techbytes

Nov 01 13:16

*psydroid2 has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)

Nov 01 13:18

*psydroid2 (~psydroid@u8ftxtfux23wk.irc) has joined #techbytes

Nov 01 13:24

*KindOne_ has quit (connection closed)

Nov 01 15:21

*KindOne_ (~KindOne@23xffjdf3phbn.irc) has joined #techbytes

Nov 01 15:23

*intense has quit (Ping timeout: 120 seconds)

Nov 01 16:29

*intense (~intense@freenode-2ue.6ih.pu7h8v.IP) has joined #techbytes

Nov 01 16:31

*jacobk (~quassel@99ed6ukzxymmc.irc) has joined #techbytes

Nov 01 17:00

*MinceR gives voice to jacobk KindOne_ psydroid2

Nov 01 17:10

*jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)

Nov 01 17:57

*jacobk (~quassel@6wygwq2t5e2hw.irc) has joined #techbytes

Nov 01 18:09

*MinceR gives voice to jacobk

Nov 01 19:10

*psydroid3 (~psydroid@u8ftxtfux23wk.irc) has joined #techbytes

Nov 01 19:15

*MinceR gives voice to psydroid3

Nov 01 19:16

*jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)

Nov 01 19:45

schestowitz

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | G 2/21 does not permit armchair inventing (T 0258/21) - The IPKat

schestowitz

""Perhaps the thought helps, that a contribution to the art is potentially patentable whenever it is "A difference that makes a difference". You have novelty as soon as there is "a difference". But mere novelty isn't enough. You need also an inventive step. And to assess whether that is present, you need to enquire what difference the novelty makes. And in any First to File jurisdiction, the difference tha

schestowitz

t the difference makes has to be derivable from the application as filed. Second medical use is particularly tricky to adjudicate. Only a few people argue that if the application fails to present the results of clinical trials then it is fatally premature, filed too early to be valid. But if not clinical trial results, what data is enough to substantiate a valid patent monopoly application and differentiate it from an armcha

schestowitz

ir invention? Hard to say, isn't it? How about "is it plausible"? What better yardstick is there, out there?

http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/10/dr-alan-white-obituary.html?showComment=1698829316156#c8591278717597822049

schestowitz

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | In memoriam Dr Alan White - The IPKat

schestowitz

"I'm afraid I am unable to provide a link to it, but many years ago Alan White wrote an article which proposed abolition of product claims for substances. Essentially he was saying that the monopoly provided by a product claim to a substance is too broad given that substances will provide many technical effects beyond the invention. Instead a use or method claim should suffice, focusing on the specific technical effect which gave rise t

schestowitz

o the invention. Unfortunately the development of patent monopoly law cannot readily encompass 'policy' ideas like this, and everyone wants the broadest claims possible, and so the suggestion did not go anywhere as with so many other good suggestions that would have improved the system. The world needs many more people like Alan White who tirelessly work to improve things for others."

http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/10/g-221-does-not-permit-armchair.html?showComment=1698821489409#c2999566873354522259

schestowitz

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | G 2/21 does not permit armchair inventing (T 0258/21) - The IPKat

schestowitz

"I have a few questions which I want your excuse if they are very basic questions. First, where the technical effect is claimed in the application (eg. second medical use claims) the issue of plausibility of this technical effect should be assessed under the sufficiency of disclosure. But in this case why the technical board considers it under the inventive step? And second, if the “objective technical problem

schestowitz

” is constructed in light of the technical effect which patent monopoly applicant mentions somehow in the application then how can be the technical problem “objective”? Because his invention is already described in the claims, should the meaning of the “invention” and “inventiveness” be an objective one? Sometimes I found some similarities between the “conception” on which US inventor concept based before AIA and the r

schestowitz

equirement of pointing the technical effect in the patent monopoly application."

*psydroid2 has quit (Quit: KVIrc 5.0.0 Aria http://www.kvirc.net/)

Nov 01 21:50

*jacobk (~quassel@6wygwq2t5e2hw.irc) has joined #techbytes

Nov 01 22:14

schestowitz

> Thanks for your support. I'm glad you all liked it.

schestowitz

schestowitz

> FYI, I've been getting plenty of shit (out-of-context quotes) from your

schestowitz

> "friends" trying to poison me against you during and after this convo

schestowitz

schestowitz

> In other news, RMS is now censored on gnusocial.net :-( :-(

schestowitz

When they cannot win the argument they...