@ Anonymous of Thursday, 31 July 2025 at 08:40:00 GMT+1
Whether A- or A+ has not been spotted by the examiner is an error and the examiner has not done his job properly, as he has manifestly not consulted the d [02:11] schestowitz[TR2] escription, to stay with the wording of G 1/24. I would thus not limit the examiners mistake only to A+.
I hope that, thanks to G 1/24, the tendency of not reading
Let us give some thought to legal certainty, in the area of writing a "freedom to operate" opinion for Europe, and how it might change if the EPO forswears its present insistence on strict conformity.
[06:00] schestowitz[TR2] Does the opinion-writer have an easier job, here in Europe, because the EPO insists, as a condition of allowance of every patent monopoly application, that the description be strictly &
Max, I take the position that it is the EPO's job to grant (or refuse) patents in accordance with the provisions of the EPC. Those provisions have been calibrated to balance the interests of third parties with those of patent [06:01] schestowitz[TR2] ees.
As expressly stated in some BoA decisions, the purpose of the EPO's current description adaptation practice is to ensure that the claims are
I fully agree with you and I could not have worded it better than you.
However, it occured to me that the EPO does, after all, have one reasonable interest in requiring amendment of the description. This is: t [06:01] schestowitz[TR2] o signal to other actors in the patent monopoly system what, exactly, is the EXAMINED scope of the claims (with or without examination errors, but that is an entirely different issue),
@ Anonymous of Thursday, 31 July 2025 at 10:32:00 GMT+1
If there is a remote possibility that A+C is meant to fall under a claim to A+B, then it why has this not been be made clear in the description at filing? [06:01] schestowitz[TR2]
Another possibility would be to claim not only A+B but also A+C provided there is unity of invention, or do you want a patent monopoly with less than 15 claims in order to
Hard to take issue, Pudding, with anything you have written today.
For the avoidance of doubt on the issue of the Geisterfahrer, I do not say that one or other commentator here is one. My point is that, alone [06:01] schestowitz[TR2] of all the world's Patent Offices, the EPO sees fit to enforce, as a condition of allowance, wholesale revision of the text of the description as filed to "conform"
MaxDrei, you write that for you the meaning of the term 'gathered' in the claim of the patent monopoly leading to G1/24 is clear to you and differs from that included in the description. The meaning of 'gathered' taken by [06:01] schestowitz[TR2] the opposition division was, as I understand it, derived from terms used in sewing, rather than articles for smoking. Is 'rolling' not a standard process of
@ Patent Robot of Thursday, 31 July 2025 at 15:35:00 GMT+
I first fail to understand in how far the disclosure A+C can be qualified as neutral, whatever neutral might mean.
Any feature [06:01] schestowitz[TR2] or combination of features mentioned in a patent monopoly description is by essence anything but neutral, otherwise the applicant/proprietor would not have brought those in. If the applicant/
Your point, Kant, escapes me. I am neither a person skilled in the art of sewing nor one inthe art of fashioning smoking materials out of tobacco leaves. But I do know what "gathered" means to me and it does not [06:01] schestowitz[TR2] include "rolling". I am not an expert in the "gathered" case at the EPO but it was my understanding that i) gathered in the claim gave it patentability over
[09:21] schestowitz[TR2][09:21] schestowitz[TR2]All in all, I believe OnlyOffice 9 is a better product than its previous version. There's a bit more focus on ergonomics. That said, I am not fond of the use of non-standard titlebars, and the UI needs more color and contrast. Functionality wise, documents open too slowly, even brand new blank ones. Styles management can be improved. Microsoft Office compatibility is, well, good, but not p [09:21] schestowitz[TR2] erfect. I'm not sure any program out there will ever be able to do that. But if you want something that can come close to the original, OnlyOffice is among the best choices right now.
[09:21] schestowitz[TR2]
[09:52] schestowitz[TR2][09:52] schestowitz[TR2]Provided a practically unlimited number of URLs, curl can be asked to get them in a parallel fashion. It then makes sure to keep N transfers alive for as long as there is N or more transfers left to complete, where X is a custom number but 50 by default.
[09:52] schestowitz[TR2]Concurrently transferring data from potentially a large number of different hosts can drastically shorten transfer times and who doesnt prefer to complete their download job sooner rather than later?
[09:52] schestowitz[TR2]
[09:53] schestowitz[TR2][09:53] schestowitz[TR2]This isnt an isolated incident; it reflects a broader trend across Europe where governments are reevaluating their reliance on Big Tech. For instance, Denmarks government recently declared a similar migration to LibreOffice and Linux, driven by fiscal prudence and security imperatives, as reported by ZDNet. In Lyons case, the city plans to integrate PostgreSQL for database management, cre [09:53] schestowitz[TR2] ating a fully open ecosystem that avoids the pitfalls of cloud-dependent services like Microsoft 365.
[09:53] schestowitz[TR2]Industry analysts note that such transitions, while challenging, can yield long-term benefits. Training programs for Lyons 8,000-plus employees will be crucial, with potential hurdles in compatibility for legacy documents. Yet, proponents argue that open-source softwares customizability outweighs these issues, allowing tailored solutions without perpetual vendor dependencies.
[09:53] schestowitz[TR2]
[09:54] schestowitz[TR2][09:54] schestowitz[TR2]We've been recommending GNU Jami along with other free communication tools for some time now. It, like many other actively developed free programs, has been steadily acquiring both new users and new features. According to a talk we had with a representative from GNU Jami's parent company, users have increased dramatically since Skype's shutdown. Considering how harmful network effects can be, this [09:54] schestowitz[TR2] is a win for the free software movement.
[09:54] schestowitz[TR2]
On further reflection, Kant, on your "gathering" point, and about how cigars are made from tobacco leaves, perhaps one can begin the step of rolling the leaves only after one has completed a step of "gather [10:55] schestowitz[TR2] ing" them. In that case though, gathering, in this particular context, being notoriously old, is no help towards patentability.
@ Patent Robot Friday, 1 August 2025 at 12:52:00 GMT+1
For your example 1: If B is not described sufficiently but C describes a feature common to B which renders B sufficiently disclosed: explicitly disclaim [10:55] schestowitz[TR2] ing A+C might in no way nullify claim A+B for insufficiency, as what you claim disclaim is the combination of A+C, but you do not disclaim C as such. If you would disclaim C as
Update on what happened across the GNOME project in the week from July 25 to August 01.