(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.
| schestowitz | http://news.tuxmachines.org/n/2023/08/28/Sipeed_unveils_RISC_V_tablet_portable_Linux_console_and_cluster.shtml | Dec 01 00:31 |
|---|---|---|
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-news.tuxmachines.org | Tux Machines — Sipeed unveils RISC-V tablet, portable Linux console, and cluster | Dec 01 00:31 | |
| schestowitz | http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/11/referral-on-description-amendments.html?showComment=1701270683396#c5932059421535959919 | Dec 01 00:31 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Referral on description amendments moves one step closer (T 56/21) - The IPKat | Dec 01 00:31 | |
| schestowitz | "Well, I can conclude with a high degree of confidence that you and I have very different definitions of what constitutes a "shameful" decision of the EBA.<br /><br />As far as I can see, the EBA in G4/19 merely answered the question referred by interpreting the EPC according the methods permitted under the VCLT, and provided detailed (and understandable) reasoning for the conclusions that they reached when applying those meth | Dec 01 00:31 |
| schestowitz | ods.<br /><br />One can perhaps question whether all relevant interpretative methods were applied in a comprehensive and methodical manner. One can certainly question whether, when applying those methods, the EBA reached the correct conclusions. However, there appears to me to be nothing wrong in principle with the EBA's approach to answering the questions referred.<br /><br />On the other hand, my reason for labelling G2/19, G3/19 and | Dec 01 00:31 |
| schestowitz | G1/21 as "shameful" decisions is that, in my view, they contain reasoning that is plainly illogical and/or conclusions that cannot be justified. Indeed, G3/19 is arguably the worst of the three. In that case, the EBA:<br />- demonstrated partiality by rewriting the questions referred in a manner that was transparently designed to provide a plausible argument for answering questions that were clearly inadmissible;<br />- reinfo | Dec 01 00:31 |
| schestowitz | rced their obvious partiality on the matter by deciding admissibility by reference to alleged (though clearly manufactured) "divergence" upon a point of law to which even the rewritten question did <b>not</b> refer;<br />- arguably ignored (or at best improperly applied) the interpretative methods permitted under the VCLT; and<br />- ultimately arrived at a conclusion that clearly violates the hierarchy of laws (and effectivel | Dec 01 00:31 |
| schestowitz | y renders Article 164(2) EPC otiose).<br /><br />In this respect, I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would view such a deeply flawed (and highly political) decision as being only "borderline"." | Dec 01 00:31 |
| *u-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) | Dec 01 00:34 | |
| *u-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@cgquwbwxtr2yq.irc) has joined #techbytes | Dec 01 00:40 | |
| *jacobk (~quassel@6wygwq2t5e2hw.irc) has joined #techbytes | Dec 01 00:44 | |
| *jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Dec 01 01:18 | |
| *jacobk (~quassel@6wygwq2t5e2hw.irc) has joined #techbytes | Dec 01 01:36 | |
| *jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Dec 01 01:49 | |
| *jacobk (~quassel@6wygwq2t5e2hw.irc) has joined #techbytes | Dec 01 01:51 | |
| *jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Dec 01 02:13 | |
| *jacobk (~quassel@6wygwq2t5e2hw.irc) has joined #techbytes | Dec 01 03:35 | |
| *jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Dec 01 04:47 | |
| *jacobk (~quassel@8bzpxdjcps74y.irc) has joined #techbytes | Dec 01 05:20 | |
| *jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Dec 01 05:51 | |
| *shOkEy (~shOkEy@178-164-235-218.pool.digikabel.hu) has joined #techbytes | Dec 01 06:27 | |
| *jacobk (~quassel@32hz32it3ih2k.irc) has joined #techbytes | Dec 01 06:30 | |
| *shOkEy has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) | Dec 01 06:32 | |
| *shOkEy (~shOkEy@fibhost-66-208-128.fibernet.hu) has joined #techbytes | Dec 01 06:33 | |
| *shOkEy has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds) | Dec 01 06:38 | |
| *shOkEy (~shOkEy@fibhost-66-106-250.fibernet.hu) has joined #techbytes | Dec 01 06:49 | |
| *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytes | Dec 01 11:36 | |
| *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytes | Dec 01 11:36 | |
| *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytes | Dec 01 11:40 | |
| *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytes | Dec 01 11:40 | |
| *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytes | Dec 01 11:41 | |
| *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytes | Dec 01 11:41 | |
| *psydroid2 (~psydroid@u8ftxtfux23wk.irc) has joined #techbytes | Dec 01 12:28 | |
| schestowitz | ††††††㰠楬㰾㕨㰾牨晥∽瑨灴㩳⼯睷潴獭慨摲慷敲挮浯爯獡扰牥祲瀭⽩〱礭慥汯ⵤ慲灳敢牲楰爭癥獩潩〰㈰爭湵潦ⴶ敹牡楷桴畯敲潢瑯湩≧ㄾⴰ敹牡漭摬删獡扰牥祲倠敲楶楳湯〠〰′畲獮映牯㘠礠慥獲眠瑩潨瑵爠扥潯楴杮⼼㹡⼼㕨㰾汢捯煫潵整䬾牥穡偹瑥桳睯景桴楥〱礭慥汯慒灳敢牲⁹ | Dec 01 13:50 |
| schestowitz | 楐琠慨馀敢湥爠湵楮杮渠湯猭潴⁰潦潭敲琠慨‶敹牡獵湩敤慣敤漭摬传⁓湩瑳污⼼汢捯煫潵整㰾氯㹩ਠ†††††ਠ | Dec 01 13:50 |
| schestowitz | <li><h5><a href="https://www.tomshardware.com/raspberry-pi/10-year-old-raspberry-pi-revision-0002-runs-for-6-years-without-rebooting">10-year-old Raspberry Pi revision 0002 runs for 6 years without rebooting</a></h5><blockquote>KerazyPete shows off their 10-year-old Raspberry Pi that’s been running non-stop for more than 6 years using a decade-old OS install.</blockquote></li> | Dec 01 13:51 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.tomshardware.com | 10-year-old Raspberry Pi revision 0002 runs for 6 years without rebooting | Tom's Hardware | Dec 01 13:51 | |
| *jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Dec 01 17:18 | |
| *KindOne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Dec 01 19:24 | |
| *KindOne_ (~KindOne@23xffjdf3phbn.irc) has joined #techbytes | Dec 01 19:24 | |
| *KindOne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Dec 01 19:31 | |
| *KindOne_ (~KindOne@23xffjdf3phbn.irc) has joined #techbytes | Dec 01 19:31 | |
| *jacobk (~quassel@6wygwq2t5e2hw.irc) has joined #techbytes | Dec 01 21:14 | |
| *psydroid2 has quit (Quit: KVIrc 5.0.0 Aria http://www.kvirc.net/) | Dec 01 21:52 | |
| schestowitz | http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/11/referral-on-description-amendments.html?showComment=1701359197301#c6899854067439836353 | Dec 01 22:13 |
| schestowitz | "In cases T450/20 and T367/20, the Board of Appeal relied upon the description to interpret the claims of a patent. In both cases, the description relied upon had been amended compared to the application as filed.<br /><br />This means that, when considering the possible (negative) consequences of description amendments, it is important to bear in mind that such amendments can contravene Article 123(2) EPC by either:<br />(a) introducin | Dec 01 22:13 |
| schestowitz | g new matter <b>into the description itself</b>; or<br />(b) changing <b>the interpretation of the claims</b> such that they relate to subject matter not clearly and unambiguously disclosed in the application as filed.<br /><br />It is perfectly possible to conceive of amendments to the description that:<br />- do not add matter under option (a) above; but<br />- add matter under option (b) above.<br /><br />For example, an amendment mi | Dec 01 22:13 |
| schestowitz | ght delete passages that provide crucial <b>context</b> for the interpretation of an unclear term that appears in the claims.<br /><br />So when can we expect EPO examiners to start conducting checks for added matter introduced under option (b) above?<br /><br />The answer, I suspect, is no time soon. This is because added matter under option (b) above really only arises when the claims contain an unclear term ... which is, of course, a | Dec 01 22:13 |
| schestowitz | situation that no examiner should tolerate. However, we all know that examiners are imperfect and that it is commonplace for patents to be granted with claims that contain at least one unclear term.<br /><br />This of course leaves applicants bearing the unenviable burden of trying to ensure that no amendments to the description inadvertently add matter under either of options (a) and (b) above. It also leaves them bearing all of the r | Dec 01 22:13 |
| schestowitz | isk in case anything goes wrong.<br /><br />Frankly, this strikes me as being absurd. After all, the EPO examiner will have interpreted the claims in the light of the description of <i>the application as filed</i>. Does this not mean that, from the perspective of legal certainty (ie ensuring, to the extent possible, that the claims are interpreted in the same way both before and after grant), the best thing to do would be not to amend t | Dec 01 22:13 |
| schestowitz | he description at all?" | Dec 01 22:13 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Referral on description amendments moves one step closer (T 56/21) - The IPKat | Dec 01 22:13 | |
| *jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Dec 01 22:20 | |
| *jacobk (~quassel@99ed6ukzxymmc.irc) has joined #techbytes | Dec 01 22:44 | |
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.