(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.
| *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Feb 07 00:21 | |
| *liberty_box (~liberty@suig26pxj59pi.irc) has joined #techbytes | Feb 07 00:24 | |
| *u-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@asrpphbur8fa4.irc) has joined #techbytes | Feb 07 00:29 | |
| *u-amarsh04 has quit (connection closed) | Feb 07 02:03 | |
| *DaemonFC has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Feb 07 04:00 | |
| *DaemonFC (~daemonfc@x5z26zur4f43c.irc) has joined #techbytes | Feb 07 04:02 | |
| *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytes | Feb 07 04:57 | |
| *psydroid4 (~psydroid@cqggrmwgu7gji.irc) has joined #techbytes | Feb 07 04:57 | |
| *DaemonFC has quit (Quit: Leaving) | Feb 07 07:26 | |
| *psydroid2 (~psydroid@cqggrmwgu7gji.irc) has joined #techbytes | Feb 07 07:35 | |
| schestowitz | x https://broadbandbreakfast.com/2022/02/nfts-may-be-central-to-the-emerging-internet-of-value-say-experts-at-pulver-von3/ | Feb 07 09:54 |
|---|---|---|
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-broadbandbreakfast.com | NFTs May Be Central to the Emerging 'Internet of Value,' Say Experts at Pulver VON3 : Broadband Breakfast | Feb 07 09:54 | |
| *u-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@asrpphbur8fa4.irc) has joined #techbytes | Feb 07 13:11 | |
| *GNUmoon2 has quit (connection closed) | Feb 07 14:15 | |
| *GNUmoon2 (~GNUmoon@7zmmwv4qqhr7u.irc) has joined #techbytes | Feb 07 14:15 | |
| schestowitz | http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2022/02/01/top-4-changes-to-the-2022-epo-guidelines-for-examination/#comment-39294 | Feb 07 14:19 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-patentblog.kluweriplaw.com | Top 4 changes to the 2022 EPO Guidelines for Examination - Kluwer Patent Blog | Feb 07 14:19 | |
| schestowitz | " | Feb 07 14:19 |
| schestowitz | 14 comments | Feb 07 14:19 |
| schestowitz | Simona Fonzi | Feb 07 14:19 |
| schestowitz | FEBRUARY 1, 2022 AT 5:14 PM | Feb 07 14:19 |
| schestowitz | “potential technical effect’” | Feb 07 14:19 |
| schestowitz | This whole “technical effect” doctrine need to go to the bin. | Feb 07 14:19 |
| schestowitz | Concerned observer | Feb 07 14:19 |
| schestowitz | FEBRUARY 1, 2022 AT 5:18 PM | Feb 07 14:19 |
| schestowitz | I do not agree that there has been much softening of the EPO’s stance. This is because the proposed wording of F-IV, 4.3 includes the following. | Feb 07 14:19 |
| schestowitz | “Parts of the description that give the skilled person the impression that they disclose ways to carry out the invention but are not encompassed by the wording of the claims are inconsistent (or contradictory) with the claims. Such inconsistencies may be present in the application as originally filed or may result from amending the claims to such an extent that they are no longer consistent with the description or drawings. | Feb 07 14:19 |
| schestowitz | For example, an inconsistency may exist due to the presence of an alternative feature which has a broader or different meaning than a feature of the independent claim. Further, an inconsistency arises if the embodiment comprises a feature which is demonstrably incompatible with an independent claim… | Feb 07 14:19 |
| schestowitz | The applicant must remove any inconsistencies by amending the description either by deleting the inconsistent embodiments or marking them as not falling within the subject-matter for which protection is sought… | Feb 07 14:19 |
| schestowitz | The terms “disclosure”, “example”, “aspect” or similar do not necessarily imply that what follows is not encompassed by an independent claim. Unambiguous expressions have to be adopted to mark an inconsistent embodiment (e.g. by adding “not encompassed by the wording of the claims”, “not according to the claimed invention” or “outside the subject-matter of the claims”) instead of replacing the terms “embodiment” or “ | Feb 07 14:19 |
| schestowitz | invention” by one of the aforementioned terms”. | Feb 07 14:19 |
| schestowitz | It therefore seems that the EPO still wants applicants to mark each and every “inconsistent embodiment” in the description as not forming part of the claimed invention. | Feb 07 14:19 |
| schestowitz | In my view, the wording of the revised Guidelines is unlikely to improve the situation in anything other than a small minority of cases. For the majority of cases, the tweaks to the wording will be about as much use as a chocolate fireguard. | Feb 07 14:19 |
| schestowitz | francis hagel | Feb 07 14:19 |
| schestowitz | FEBRUARY 2, 2022 AT 8:33 AM | Feb 07 14:19 |
| schestowitz | Decision T 1642/17 referenced in CLB, II.A.6.3.1 published in the OJ 2021 points out that the claims must be interpreted without the help of the description when the words of the claim have a “well-established meaning in the art”. If this principle is given full consideration, the requirement to remove inconsistencies between the description and the claims loses basis. It is surprising indeed that the advance preview of the 2022 revision fails | Feb 07 14:19 |
| schestowitz | to mention this principle, especially given that it is emphasised in the last version of the CLB. | Feb 07 14:19 |
| schestowitz | It is also surprising that the issue of sufficiency of training datasets for AI pointed out in T 0161/18 is not mentioned, this is a prominent decision in the field of inventions using AI. | Feb 07 14:19 |
| schestowitz | Another Attorney | Feb 07 14:19 |
| schestowitz | FEBRUARY 1, 2022 AT 6:03 PM | Feb 07 14:19 |
| schestowitz | It’s not clear that G 1/19 maintained the status quo. Point 6.1 of T 1371/16 suggests that constraining further use of the output of a simulation might be a new requirement that did not exist prior to G 1/19. | Feb 07 14:19 |
| schestowitz | Attentive Observer | Feb 07 14:19 |
| schestowitz | FEBRUARY 1, 2022 AT 9:20 PM | Feb 07 14:19 |
| schestowitz | For all those who thought that the EPO would bow to the pressure generated by the famous T 1989/18, the amendments of the Guidelines do not change EPO’s fundamental stance in the matter. | Feb 07 14:19 |
| schestowitz | i agree with Concerned Observer. | Feb 07 14:19 |
| schestowitz | What can be considered positive is that in case of doubts, the doubts should benefit to the applicant. | Feb 07 14:20 |
| schestowitz | When looking at some of the suggestions certain representatives wanted to maintain, it is clear that what they considered allowable is certainly not allowable. | Feb 07 14:20 |
| schestowitz | It is to be hoped that applicants will stop filing claims of the kind “computer program” or “program support” which perform method claim 1 when inserted in a computer, when in order to perform the method needs external devices. If no external devices are disclosed, the objection is then not Art 84 but Art 83. When the method consist for example in controlling process, sicking the program in a laptop will not allow to carry out the method! | Feb 07 14:20 |
| schestowitz | See F-IV, 3.9.2. | Feb 07 14:20 |
| schestowitz | Such a conclusion was however reached by a BA in T 926/17 | Feb 07 14:20 |
| *u-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) | Feb 07 14:20 | |
| schestowitz | https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t170926eu1.html | Feb 07 14:20 |
| schestowitz | Max Drei | Feb 07 14:20 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.epo.org | EPO - T 0926/17 () of 17.11.2021 | Feb 07 14:20 | |
| schestowitz | FEBRUARY 2, 2022 AT 11:31 AM | Feb 07 14:20 |
| schestowitz | On the issue of conformity between what the claims define as the invention and what the description describes as the invention, I’m running a thought up the flagpole to see how other readers react. | Feb 07 14:20 |
| schestowitz | Serving US clients, one learns that if it comes to litigation, every “issue” that can be put forward adds another million dollars to the costs. So if one is an SME which frars being bullied by a large corporation, it is essential to keep the number of “issues” to a minimum. But every disconformity between claims and description is an opportunity to construct an additional “issue” to argue about in litigation. | Feb 07 14:20 |
| schestowitz | Accordingly, if the EPO is sincere about helping SME’s by granting them patents they can swiftly enforce, and sincere about raising “quality” it will continue to lean on Applicants to conform their descriptions to the claim amendments they make during prosecution at the EPO. | Feb 07 14:20 |
| schestowitz | But there’s a balance in everything. We want “fair” protection for Applicants together with “reasonable” legal certainty for everybody. It’s the courts that have to deliver that objective. Serving up to them patents with thoughtfully conformed descriptions will help them to do that job, but to chase after clarity to an extent of 100% is ridiculous nonsense. Even when you think you have text which exhibits100% clarity, every self- | Feb 07 14:20 |
| schestowitz | respecting lawyer will find an argument that it does not.. | Feb 07 14:20 |
| schestowitz | Patent robot | Feb 07 14:20 |
| schestowitz | FEBRUARY 2, 2022 AT 12:22 PM | Feb 07 14:20 |
| schestowitz | Each amendment of the description could creates an extra “issue”: anyone could argue e.g. that the deletion of subject-matter from the description violates Art. 123(2) and/or Art. 123(3), if done after grant. | Feb 07 14:20 |
| schestowitz | Such a deletion could also create an “issue” of art. 83 and also art. 84. | Feb 07 14:20 |
| schestowitz | No amendment no “issue”, unless you really have an inconsistency, e.g. you claim that A comprises B and you only disclose and show in the figures that A never comprises B. | Feb 07 14:20 |
| schestowitz | Concerned observer | Feb 07 14:20 |
| schestowitz | FEBRUARY 2, 2022 AT 2:31 PM | Feb 07 14:20 |
| schestowitz | Max, it all depends upon whether you think that the provisions of the EPC (and of all relevant national laws) demand complete conformity between the description and the claims. | Feb 07 14:20 |
| schestowitz | Personally, I am of the school of thought that the extent of protection conferred is determined by reference to the claims, with the description serving only as one of many possible sources of evidence that can be considered in the event that wording of the claims does not convey a clear meaning to the person skilled in the art. | Feb 07 14:20 |
| schestowitz | It is not practical (and indeed, for some cases, it is impossible) to draft applications that will be straightforward to adapt to each and every hypothetical claim set, i.e. to each and every embodiment of the invention that is clearly and unambiguously disclosed. It is therefore inevitable that bringing the disclosure of some applications STRICTLY into line with the allowable claims will require extensive amendments for which there is questionable | Feb 07 14:20 |
| schestowitz | basis. Even if this can be done perfectly, ie without inadvertently adding subject matter, the time (and hence cost) of doing so can be hard for some applicants to bear. | Feb 07 14:20 |
| schestowitz | To put this in perspective, another way of solving any perceived problems of unclear claim scope would be for EPO examiners to take the time to PROPERLY assess the clarity of THE CLAIMS. If the wording of a claim conveys a clear meaning to those skilled in the art, then “inconsistencies” between the description and the claims are irrelevant – as there will be no need for anyone (including any national court) to consult the description in order | Feb 07 14:20 |
| schestowitz | to interpret the claims. Whilst questions may remain about possible equivalents, it is not within the EPO’s remit to worry about those. | Feb 07 14:20 |
| schestowitz | To me, the EPO’s drift towards more strict standards for adapting the description (which is allegedly for the purpose of meeting the requirements of Art 84 EPC) represents a mirror image of their increasingly relaxed attitude towards clarity of the claims. As will be evident from the points made above, this effectively shifts a cost / time burden from examiners to applicants (at least for those cases where the applicant caves in to the examiner’ | Feb 07 14:20 |
| schestowitz | s demands regarding adaptation of the description). And this is far from the only example of policies adopted by the EPO that save (time and) money for them but that are distinctly unfavourable for applicants. | Feb 07 14:20 |
| schestowitz | Max Drei | Feb 07 14:20 |
| schestowitz | FEBRUARY 2, 2022 AT 2:56 PM | Feb 07 14:20 |
| schestowitz | Thank you, Robot, and Concerned, for your replies. I feel the urge to reply. | Feb 07 14:20 |
| schestowitz | Robot, on reflection, I suspect you are right about “issues”. Should we therefore copy the Americans, and leave the description and drawings as a record of what was filed on the filing date. We do it already with the drawing figures. Why not the text too. If it ever then comes to litigating validity, that pristine record would make everybody’s job much easier. And as for infringement, given that we expect judges always to be able to construe a | Feb 07 14:20 |
| schestowitz | claim which as granted is (as the Americans say) indefinite, surely they will also be able to cope with a lack of perfect conformity. | Feb 07 14:20 |
| schestowitz | Concerned, I don’t see any diminution in the severity with which the EPO examines for Art 84 clarity. It’s the old One-Two technique, as a way to clear out claims which do not impress them, but which Applicant stubbornly defends under Art 54, 56 and 83 EPC. First comes the objection under Art 84. Then, when Applicant amends for clarity, the Art 123(2) punch is a clean knock-out. | Feb 07 14:20 |
| schestowitz | Patent robot | Feb 07 14:20 |
| schestowitz | FEBRUARY 2, 2022 AT 4:09 PM | Feb 07 14:20 |
| schestowitz | Re validity: does it really make a difference whether an otherwise valid claim is included in a patent which discloses an embodiment not covered by the claims? | Feb 07 14:20 |
| schestowitz | Re infringement: should the EPO reject my description because it might create “issues” in patent infringement? Even if my description was a complete disaster in case of infringement litigation, this is not EPO’s business at all. | Feb 07 14:20 |
| schestowitz | francis hagel | Feb 07 14:20 |
| schestowitz | FEBRUARY 2, 2022 AT 9:13 PM | Feb 07 14:20 |
| schestowitz | Dear Max Drei and Robot | Feb 07 14:21 |
| schestowitz | What is the basis in the EPC for requiring the removal of “inconsistencies” between the description and the claims, when the words of the claims have a well-established meaning in the art ? None. And as you mention, this adds potential 123(2) issues. | Feb 07 14:21 |
| schestowitz | One not so visible aspect of the overuse of art 84 objections is that it enables EDs to keep away from art 83 issues. | Feb 07 14:21 |
| schestowitz | Art 83 issues are very unpopular among EDs and the EPO in general, because most often they cannot be cured without adding new matter to the description, so they suffer from an applicant-unfriendly optics This can be assessed from the minuscule number of applications which are finally rejected on the basis of art 83. | Feb 07 14:21 |
| schestowitz | The other reason is that examiners may feel much less technically “legitimate” than applicants’ experts when raising a sufficiency issue. | Feb 07 14:21 |
| schestowitz | Last but not least, spotting art 83 issues requires a thorough review of the entire application, i.e. a time-consuming work. | Feb 07 14:21 |
| schestowitz | Patent robot | Feb 07 14:21 |
| schestowitz | FEBRUARY 3, 2022 AT 9:38 AM | Feb 07 14:21 |
| schestowitz | There is no basis at all in the EPC: art. 84 only requires that the claims are supported by the description, not the opposite. | Feb 07 14:21 |
| schestowitz | The support requirement is there just to avoid that you cannot find a claimed feature in the description of a granted patent. As a matter of fact, the EPO allows applicants to copy a claimed feature into the description to overcome a lack of support objection. | Feb 07 14:21 |
| schestowitz | Max Drei | Feb 07 14:21 |
| schestowitz | FEBRUARY 3, 2022 AT 3:12 PM | Feb 07 14:21 |
| schestowitz | Robot, you assert that there is no basis in Art 84 EPC for stripping the text of inconsistencies between description and claims. I still think that there is something intuitively wrong about letting through to issue a text in which the definition of the invention in the allowed claim is materially very different from what the description states the invention to be. For me, that prejudices the “clarity” of the claim precisely because the | Feb 07 14:21 |
| schestowitz | statement of invention in the description does not “support” the definition of the invention in the claim. | Feb 07 14:21 |
| schestowitz | But as I always say, the pursuit of 100% clarity is, in day to day practice in the real world, a great mischief. The lesser evil is, I suppose, to leave the description as filed unamended during prosecution. | Feb 07 14:21 |
| schestowitz | Patent robot | Feb 07 14:21 |
| schestowitz | FEBRUARY 3, 2022 AT 3:54 PM | Feb 07 14:21 |
| schestowitz | I was speaking about support, not clarity, which is a different requirement, thought they are both in art. 84. | Feb 07 14:21 |
| schestowitz | As I wrote before, (real) inconsistencies between description and claims should be removed to avoid issues of clarity. | Feb 07 14:21 |
| schestowitz | However, a description containing unclaimed subject-matter is NOT an incosistency. | Feb 07 14:21 |
| schestowitz | Please note that all descriptions contain unclaimed subject-matter, so that, according to the EPO guidelines, all patents in the world, including all European patents, should be unclear. | Feb 07 14:21 |
| schestowitz | " | Feb 07 14:21 |
| *blitzed (~blitzed@x88ibvufdbyjc.irc) has joined #techbytes | Feb 07 15:37 | |
| schestowitz | > Okay, I think this is because your server and the proxy's client | Feb 07 17:12 |
| schestowitz | > (openssl s_client) can't agree on a common protocol version. | Feb 07 17:12 |
| schestowitz | > | Feb 07 17:12 |
| schestowitz | > error:1409442E:SSL routines:ssl3_read_bytes:tlsv1 alert protocol | Feb 07 17:12 |
| schestowitz | > version:../ssl/record/rec_layer_s3.c:1407:SSL alert number 70 | Feb 07 17:12 |
| schestowitz | > | Feb 07 17:12 |
| schestowitz | > It works when I use GnuTLS as the client (which definitely has TLS1_3 | Feb 07 17:12 |
| schestowitz | > support). My OpenSSL is probably too old, though I haven't checked this. | Feb 07 17:12 |
| schestowitz | > I may switch back to GnuTLS, which I originally used. At the time, | Feb 07 17:12 |
| schestowitz | > s_client was more tolerant of misconfigured TLS servers (common in the | Feb 07 17:12 |
| schestowitz | > early days of Gemini). | Feb 07 17:12 |
| schestowitz | > | Feb 07 17:12 |
| schestowitz | > In the meantime, I've put the source in the link below. It's just a bash | Feb 07 17:12 |
| schestowitz | > script to be run as CGI, which calls an awk script, and a bash script | Feb 07 17:12 |
| schestowitz | > 'gem-get' which is just a wrapper for s_client. There's not much code, | Feb 07 17:12 |
| schestowitz | > so you should be able to edit it to suit your own paths etc. I think | Feb 07 17:12 |
| schestowitz | > everything needed is in the tarball, let me know if anything's missing. | Feb 07 17:12 |
| schestowitz | So at the end (today) we found out that we had set agate to only accept TLS 1.3 connections. Hence, until today, SUSA proxy did not manage to interact with the daemon. This is not "resolved" (making agate less strict). | Feb 07 17:12 |
| schestowitz | In the meanwhile we've developed a new gemini proxy implementation in Perl ;-) | Feb 07 17:12 |
| schestowitz | Still work in progress, but inspired by your work. | Feb 07 17:13 |
| schestowitz | Regards and thank you! | Feb 07 17:13 |
| schestowitz | " | Feb 07 17:13 |
| schestowitz | Raspberry Pi 400 UK | Feb 07 17:13 |
| schestowitz | is now available at Pimoroni! | Feb 07 17:13 |
| schestowitz | View now > | Feb 07 17:13 |
| schestowitz | Feb 07 17:13 | |
| schestowitz | Raspberry Pi 400 UK | Feb 07 17:13 |
| schestowitz | Ahoy! | Feb 07 17:13 |
| schestowitz | You asked us to let you know when Raspberry Pi 400 UK would become available again. Well, that time is now! If you're still interested, then please click below to be whisked away to our store. | Feb 07 17:13 |
| schestowitz | ' | Feb 07 17:13 |
| schestowitz | > Great. Have you configured agate to accept tls1.2? I forget what the | Feb 07 18:05 |
| schestowitz | > spec says - doesn't it mandate 1.2 reluctantly, but recommend 1.3? | Feb 07 18:05 |
| schestowitz | > | Feb 07 18:05 |
| schestowitz | > Nice choice to use perl, I may switch if you're releasing the code! | Feb 07 18:05 |
| schestowitz | The code is already released. Changes propagate around midday every day (bugs still being tackled): | Feb 07 18:05 |
| schestowitz | See Gemini/Gemini-Proxy/ | Feb 07 18:05 |
| schestowitz | under gemini://gemini.techrights.org/git/tr-git/Gemini/ | Feb 07 18:05 |
| schestowitz | Perl proxy over nginx (from my office): http://gemini.techrights.org/proxy?url=gemini://gemini.techrights.org/git/tr-git/Gemini/ | Feb 07 18:05 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-gemini.techrights.org | Gemini Proxy for Techrights | Feb 07 18:05 | |
| schestowitz-TR | I have just trawleda round the git pages, licence, changes etc. | Feb 07 18:10 |
| schestowitz-TR | they are all linked correctly over the proxy as well | Feb 07 18:10 |
| schestowitz | Fwd: No patents for computer games? Look closely! | Feb 07 19:03 |
| schestowitz | No patents for computer games? Look closely! | Feb 07 19:03 |
| schestowitz | Did you know that Clash of Clans and Hay Day generated €2 million in revenue a day in 2013 for Finnish mobile game development company Supercell? | Feb 07 19:03 |
| schestowitz | And would you have thought that Supercell has 180+ published patent documents? | Feb 07 19:03 |
| schestowitz | I've looked through some of them in an Instagram Reel (in German). Some notable examples: | Feb 07 19:03 |
| schestowitz | EP 2 836 278 B1 "SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING TECHNICAL PROCESSES" concerns a way of triggering multiple actions with a single gesture in Hay Day | Feb 07 19:03 |
| schestowitz | EP 3 635 526 B1 "APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING USER INTERFACE OF COMPUTING APPARATUS" concerns certain control elements in Brawl Stars | Feb 07 19:03 |
| schestowitz | EP 3 003 518 B1 "ELECTRONIC DEVICE FOR FACILITATING USER INTERACTIONS WITH GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACE" concerns an efficient way of deploying war-ships on a shore region in Clash of Clans | Feb 07 19:03 |
| schestowitz | --- | Feb 07 19:03 |
| schestowitz | Best shilling swpats again... in Europe | Feb 07 19:03 |
| *DaemonFC (~daemonfc@bs7zfy7xzt3k4.irc) has joined #techbytes | Feb 07 19:51 | |
| *DaemonFC has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Feb 07 20:28 | |
| *GNUmoon2 has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Feb 07 20:56 | |
| *Despatche (~desp@u3xy9z2ifjzci.irc) has joined #techbytes | Feb 07 21:44 | |
| *GNUmoon2 (~GNUmoon@nusf44q6gygwa.irc) has joined #techbytes | Feb 07 22:17 | |
| *DaemonFC (~daemonfc@yuyut9rm2hrme.irc) has joined #techbytes | Feb 07 22:18 | |
| *ebin has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Feb 07 22:39 | |
| *ebin (~ebin@dne4qqwj27qau.irc) has joined #techbytes | Feb 07 22:40 | |
| *psydroid2 has quit (connection closed) | Feb 07 22:41 | |
| *DaemonFC has quit (connection closed) | Feb 07 23:26 | |
| *DaemonFC (~daemonfc@yuyut9rm2hrme.irc) has joined #techbytes | Feb 07 23:26 | |
| *psydroid4 has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Feb 07 23:28 | |
| *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytes | Feb 07 23:31 | |
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.