●● IRC: #techbytes @ Techrights IRC Network: Friday, December 01, 2023 ●● ● Dec 01 [00:31] schestowitz http://news.tuxmachines.org/n/2023/08/28/Sipeed_unveils_RISC_V_tablet_portable_Linux_console_and_cluster.shtml [00:31] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-news.tuxmachines.org | Tux Machines Sipeed unveils RISC-V tablet, portable Linux console, and cluster [00:31] schestowitz http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/11/referral-on-description-amendments.html?showComment=1701270683396#c5932059421535959919 [00:31] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Referral on description amendments moves one step closer (T 56/21) - The IPKat [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.

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 [00:31] schestowitz ods.

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.

On the other hand, my reason for labelling G2/19, G3/19 and [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:
- 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;
- reinfo [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 not refer;
- arguably ignored (or at best improperly applied) the interpretative methods permitted under the VCLT; and
- ultimately arrived at a conclusion that clearly violates the hierarchy of laws (and effectivel [00:31] schestowitz y renders Article 164(2) EPC otiose).

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"." [00:34] *u-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) [00:40] *u-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@cgquwbwxtr2yq.irc) has joined #techbytes [00:44] *jacobk (~quassel@6wygwq2t5e2hw.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Dec 01 [01:18] *jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [01:36] *jacobk (~quassel@6wygwq2t5e2hw.irc) has joined #techbytes [01:49] *jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [01:51] *jacobk (~quassel@6wygwq2t5e2hw.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Dec 01 [02:13] *jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) ● Dec 01 [03:35] *jacobk (~quassel@6wygwq2t5e2hw.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Dec 01 [04:47] *jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) ● Dec 01 [05:20] *jacobk (~quassel@8bzpxdjcps74y.irc) has joined #techbytes [05:51] *jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) ● Dec 01 [06:27] *shOkEy (~shOkEy@178-164-235-218.pool.digikabel.hu) has joined #techbytes [06:30] *jacobk (~quassel@32hz32it3ih2k.irc) has joined #techbytes [06:32] *shOkEy has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) [06:33] *shOkEy (~shOkEy@fibhost-66-208-128.fibernet.hu) has joined #techbytes [06:38] *shOkEy has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds) [06:49] *shOkEy (~shOkEy@fibhost-66-106-250.fibernet.hu) has joined #techbytes ● Dec 01 [11:36] *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytes [11:36] *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytes [11:40] *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytes [11:40] *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytes [11:41] *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytes [11:41] *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Dec 01 [12:28] *psydroid2 (~psydroid@u8ftxtfux23wk.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Dec 01 [13:50] schestowitz [13:50] schestowitz [13:51] schestowitz
  • 10-year-old Raspberry Pi revision 0002 runs for 6 years without rebooting
    KerazyPete shows off their 10-year-old Raspberry Pi thats been running non-stop for more than 6 years using a decade-old OS install.
    • [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 [17:18] *jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) ● Dec 01 [19:24] *KindOne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [19:24] *KindOne_ (~KindOne@23xffjdf3phbn.irc) has joined #techbytes [19:31] *KindOne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [19:31] *KindOne_ (~KindOne@23xffjdf3phbn.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Dec 01 [21:14] *jacobk (~quassel@6wygwq2t5e2hw.irc) has joined #techbytes [21:52] *psydroid2 has quit (Quit: KVIrc 5.0.0 Aria http://www.kvirc.net/) ● Dec 01 [22:13] schestowitz http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/11/referral-on-description-amendments.html?showComment=1701359197301#c6899854067439836353 [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.

    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:
    (a) introducin [22:13] schestowitz g new matter into the description itself; or
    (b) changing the interpretation of the claims such that they relate to subject matter not clearly and unambiguously disclosed in the application as filed.

    It is perfectly possible to conceive of amendments to the description that:
    - do not add matter under option (a) above; but
    - add matter under option (b) above.

    For example, an amendment mi [22:13] schestowitz ght delete passages that provide crucial context for the interpretation of an unclear term that appears in the claims.

    So when can we expect EPO examiners to start conducting checks for added matter introduced under option (b) above?

    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 [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.

    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 [22:13] schestowitz isk in case anything goes wrong.

    Frankly, this strikes me as being absurd. After all, the EPO examiner will have interpreted the claims in the light of the description of the application as filed. 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 [22:13] schestowitz he description at all?" [22:13] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Referral on description amendments moves one step closer (T 56/21) - The IPKat [22:20] *jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [22:44] *jacobk (~quassel@99ed6ukzxymmc.irc) has joined #techbytes