●● IRC: #techbytes @ Techrights IRC Network: Friday, August 11, 2023 ●● ● Aug 11 [01:02] schestowitz http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/08/adding-matter-by-amending-description.html?showComment=1691611783731#c1000952688583040927 [01:02] schestowitz Sharp intake of breath, on reading SG's pithy comment on support and Art 84, EPC.

First reaction was that SG's argument deprives of legitimacy the EPO argument that the description has to be "conformed" to each successive prosecution amendment of the claim.

My more considered reaction is that there is still room for people to cling to their obsessively strict view, that Art 84 EPC "support" is p [01:02] schestowitz resent ONLY when there is no inconsistency whatever, between the description the EPO "intends to grant" and the claims in the form they have acquired on their way to allowance. If there is no fair way to get to zero inconsistency, they say, that's just tough luck on the Applicant; it should have done a better job when drafting the patent application. As to whether that attitude inside the EPO squares with the Art 69 command t [01:02] schestowitz o balance the interests of the inventor with those of the public, reasonable people will likely disagree. [01:02] schestowitz http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/08/adding-matter-by-amending-description.html?showComment=1691608983257#c7865970782159874970 [01:02] schestowitz Thanks to Rose for the clarification about Sec 125(3) and 130(7) UKPA. There is indeed a link between Art 69 and the UKPA.

It does however not change my position. A European patent can be centrally limited under Art 105b. In view of the result with the British one, I have strong doubts that the amendments requested by the proprietor would have been accepted by an ED, if it had been a granted European patent. [01:02] schestowitz http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/08/adding-matter-by-amending-description.html?showComment=1691608849600#c8735765091454383042 [01:02] schestowitz Proof of the pudding,

The link seems to have been amended, and I have been able to look at your comments about T 450/20. In those comments you say that it is unclear from the wording of Art 69(1) which description and drawings should be used to interpret which claims. This is one possible interpretation, but not the only one possible.

I interpret this sentence as relating to the description as filed before g [01:02] schestowitz rant and relating to the description as adapted to the claims as granted in the patent.

As in general claims at filing are much broader than claims after grant, the scope of protection afforded to an application is necessarily broader than that afforded once the claims have been finalised and limited.

The terminology in the description and in the claims should be identical all along the procedure if problems of A [01:02] schestowitz rt 123(2) are to be avoided. It follows that features of the claims cannot have a different interpretation before and after grant. At a pinch, one could even say, nothing is unclear, as the terminology remains. [01:02] schestowitz http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/08/adding-matter-by-amending-description.html?showComment=1691589208984#c729075847386282357 [01:02] schestowitz I will admit the analogous application under section 130(7) to national UK patents. [01:02] schestowitz http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/08/adding-matter-by-amending-description.html?showComment=1691586598669#c7968356698267815951 [01:02] schestowitz Proof of the pudding,

I have never said that a British judge, should he wish to do so, could not apply in interpretation of the scope of protection afforded to a GB patent, the principles set out in Art 69 EPC. What I cannot agree with, is that the interpretation of a British judge, when dealing with a GB patent, necessarily applies to European practice.

I regret that you did not understand my comment about the ap [01:02] schestowitz plication of Art 69 to the description of the patent, but on the basis of the description as filed. I maintain that it is plain logic. After examination, once the patent is granted, the patent is in the state it should have been upon filing. What good is it then to go back to the application as filed? In general there is a different prior art and the claims have been limited. It is thus neither correct nor logical wanting then to interp [01:02] schestowitz ret the claims as granted on the basis of the description as filed.

As far as the difficulty in following that interpretation of the claims becomes then a constantly moving target", I am really at a loss to understand. How can it become a moving target once the claims have been limited, unless you want to interpret the claims in various ways, in a way suitable for your purpose?

Contrary to what you claim, [01:02] schestowitz I have engaged with numerous points made by "the other side". I am not hiding behind anything, and I do not need any lesson from you how I should argue or reason. I do not like this kind of attitude, but I will refrain to say any more.

As far as the link you have given is concerned, it does not work. When trying to open the page, the error message 404 appears. I do compare this mishap in the link with the mishap i [01:02] schestowitz n point 1 of the reasons when there is mention of EP 2 489 332 C2. Rather than GB 2 489 332 C2. No wonder that when reading EP 332 some people immediately think of adaptation of the description in European practice. As said the problem arose in a British patent not in the national part of a European patent.

The amendments introducing added matter were made post grant and not before grant. Ensygnia v Shell [2023] EWHC 1495 [01:02] schestowitz (Pat) is the wrong case for trying to question Art 84, support of the description, i.e. adaptation of the description before grant.

I still have not seen any national part of European patent being revoked by a national court in view of the adaptation of the description as required by the EPC under Art 84, whereby I am aiming at support by the description and not at clarity. [01:02] schestowitz http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/08/adding-matter-by-amending-description.html?showComment=1691585974017#c3638712041351586265 [01:02] schestowitz Art 69 applies to the application or to the patent. Once the patent is granted, it does not appear prima facie logical wanting to apply Art 69 to the application having led to the grant. Once the description has been amended in order to support the claim, it is difficult to follow that interpretation of the claims becomes then a constantly moving target."

Once the description has been amended in order to support the clai [01:02] schestowitz m....

Once the description has been amended in order to support the claim....

Once the description has been amended in order to support the claim....

Look, Art. 84 is not a long provision. Go back and read it.

It's a requirement....of the *claims*. "The claims shall...".

Any claim you can write is either supported by the description as filed, or lacks support in the descr [01:02] schestowitz iption as filed. You CANNOT "generate" support for a claim that was NOT supported by the description as originally filed by amending the description, without adding subject-matter that was not there originally. [01:02] schestowitz [01:02] schestowitz [01:02] schestowitz http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/08/adding-matter-by-amending-description.html?showComment=1691571145058#c127988055109764123 [01:02] schestowitz Mr Thomas, thank you for informing us that "The problem is thus a British problem and has nothing to do with European practice". For the benefit of us Britishers, would you care to explain why you think that interpretation of the scope of protection afforded to a GB patent does not involve application of the principles set out in Art 69 EPC?

It is interesting to note that, as is typical of your style, your comments [01:02] schestowitz appear to be long on opinion and short on legal / logical reasoning.

For example, you opine that "it does not appear prima facie logical wanting to apply Art 69 to the application having led to the grant". However, you do not provide any explanation for this.

You also, without explanation, opine that "it is difficult to follow that interpretation of the claims becomes then a constantly moving target& [01:02] schestowitz quot;.

To make any kind of positive contribution to the debate, you really need to show your working / reasoning and engage directly with points made by "the other side". Hiding behind a feigned lack of understanding will simply not do. If you really are struggling to follow an argument, why not ask for further explanations? If you had asked, I could have pointed you to the questions that I posed on an earlier threa [01:02] schestowitz d:
https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/07/the-risk-of-pre-grant-description.html [01:02] schestowitz [01:02] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Adding matter by amending the description to exclude embodiments (Ensygnia v Shell [2023] EWHC 1495 (Pat)) - The IPKat [01:02] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Adding matter by amending the description to exclude embodiments (Ensygnia v Shell [2023] EWHC 1495 (Pat)) - The IPKat [01:02] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Adding matter by amending the description to exclude embodiments (Ensygnia v Shell [2023] EWHC 1495 (Pat)) - The IPKat [01:03] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Adding matter by amending the description to exclude embodiments (Ensygnia v Shell [2023] EWHC 1495 (Pat)) - The IPKat [01:03] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Adding matter by amending the description to exclude embodiments (Ensygnia v Shell [2023] EWHC 1495 (Pat)) - The IPKat [01:03] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Adding matter by amending the description to exclude embodiments (Ensygnia v Shell [2023] EWHC 1495 (Pat)) - The IPKat [01:04] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Adding matter by amending the description to exclude embodiments (Ensygnia v Shell [2023] EWHC 1495 (Pat)) - The IPKat [01:04] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | The risk of pre-grant description amendments (T 450/20) - The IPKat [01:07] schestowitz "Readers of a certain age or upbringing might be familiar with the 1950's BBC radio comedy, "The Goon Show". One of many famous bits of dialogue in that series, between the characters Bluebottle and Eccles, went along the lines which I've reproduced below (for a recording see, e.g., https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctM_Rvgjfpo).

From time to time, the arguments put forward for the EPO and its supporters in relation t [01:07] schestowitz o the alleged requirement for description amendments put me in mind of this exchange:

BLUEBOTTLE: What time is it Eccles?
ECCLES:Err, just a minute. I've got it written down here on a piece of paper. A nice man wrote the time down for me this morning.
B: Oh, then why do you carry it around with you, Eccles?
E: Well, if anybody asks me the time, I can show it to them.
B: Wait a minute Eccles, my good man.. [01:07] schestowitz .
E: What is it fellow?
B: It's writted on this bit of paper, what is eight o'clock, is writted.
E: I know that, my good fellow. That's right, um, when I asked the fella to write it down, it was eight o'clock.
B: Well then. Supposing when somebody asks you the time, it isn't eight o'clock?
E: Ah, then I don't show it to them.
B: Oh... Well how do you know when it's eight o'clock?
E: I've got it written [01:07] schestowitz down on a piece of paper!

Simply replace references to "time", "eight o'clock" and "written down on a piece of paper" with "interpretation of the claims", "Article 84", and/or "support in the description" as you see appropriate in order to get the same effect.' [01:07] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-@Invidious: https://invidious.weblibre.org/watch?v=ctM_Rvgjfpo [01:07] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-SSL received a record that exceeded the maximum permissible length. ( status 0 @ https://invidious.weblibre.org/watch?v=ctM_Rvgjfpo ) ● Aug 11 [02:03] *jacobk (~quassel@8iz67radqa7vc.irc) has joined #techbytes [02:03] *MinceR gives voice to jacobk [02:14] *Noisytoot has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [02:21] *Noisytoot (~noisytoot@tkbibjhmbkvb8.irc) has joined #techbytes [02:21] *MinceR gives voice to Noisytoot [02:43] *Noisytoot has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [02:44] *Noisytoot (~noisytoot@tkbibjhmbkvb8.irc) has joined #techbytes [02:44] *MinceR gives voice to Noisytoot ● Aug 11 [03:05] schestowitz MinceR: gulagboy is back [03:05] schestowitz I am the one who knocks! [03:05] schestowitz I am the danger! [03:05] schestowitz I'm a real scientist [03:05] schestowitz I don't plan to run out of money any time soon, I have a meth lab and my product is 99.1% pure [03:05] schestowitz It's the best meth ● Aug 11 [04:26] *Noisytoot has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [04:52] *Noisytoot (~noisytoot@tkbibjhmbkvb8.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Aug 11 [05:17] *Noisytoot has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [05:23] *Noisytoot (~noisytoot@tkbibjhmbkvb8.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Aug 11 [07:22] schestowitz
  • [07:22] schestowitz
    Rewriting wipEout
    [07:22] schestowitz
    [07:22] schestowitz

    The source code for the classic PSX launch title wipEout was leaked in 2022. A few month ago I finally sat down to take a look at it. The result is a (nearly) complete rewrite that compiles to Windows, Linux, macOS and WASM.

    [07:22] schestowitz

    I'm not the only one who embarked on a path to restore the game. To my knowledge, there are two other efforts ongoing: WipEout Phantom Edition and a yet unnamed project by XProger. Both offer more features than my rewrite. If you're on Windows and you just want to enjoy the game, these are the better option.

    [07:22] schestowitz
    [07:22] schestowitz
    • [07:22] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-phoboslab.org | PhobosLab [07:23] schestowitz
  • [07:23] schestowitz
    Fork Yeah! Examining open source history after Red Hat's move
    [07:23] schestowitz
    [07:23] schestowitz

    The talk focuses on Sun Microsystem's handling of Solaris and OpenSolaris, both before and after their Oracle acquisition, and the whole talk is worth a listenso much context about the history of ZFS, Solaris, Illumos, dtrace, and even UNIX and Linux history are contained within.

    [07:23] schestowitz

    But there was one section (around the 32:00 mark) where if you substitute "Red Hat" for "Sun," rhymes with this year's "open source company" drama: [...]

    [07:23] schestowitz
    [07:23] schestowitz
    • [07:23] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.jeffgeerling.com | Fork Yeah! Examining open source history after Red Hat's move | Jeff Geerling ● Aug 11 [08:28] schestowitz Little help? ● Aug 11 [09:24] *Noisytoot has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [09:26] *Noisytoot (~noisytoot@tkbibjhmbkvb8.irc) has joined #techbytes [09:45] *Noisytoot has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [09:53] *Noisytoot (~noisytoot@tkbibjhmbkvb8.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Aug 11 [10:35] *liberty_box_ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [10:35] *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [10:35] *rianne has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [10:36] *rianne_ has quit (Connection closed) [10:36] *rianne (~rianne@freenode-7uc.ra8.a7lnth.IP) has joined #techbytes [10:36] *rianne (~rianne@3stvfjh5iuw88.irc) has joined #techbytes [10:37] *liberty_box (~liberty@3stvfjh5iuw88.irc) has joined #techbytes [10:39] *Noisytoot has quit (Quit: ZNC 1.8.2 - https://znc.in) [10:39] *rianne has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [10:39] *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [10:39] *rianne has quit (Connection closed) [10:40] *liberty_box (~liberty@3stvfjh5iuw88.irc) has joined #techbytes [10:40] *rianne (~rianne@3stvfjh5iuw88.irc) has joined #techbytes [10:40] *rianne (~rianne@freenode-7uc.ra8.a7lnth.IP) has joined #techbytes [10:40] *liberty_box_ (~liberty@3stvfjh5iuw88.irc) has joined #techbytes [10:46] *Noisytoot (~noisytoot@tkbibjhmbkvb8.irc) has joined #techbytes [10:49] *Noisytoot has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [10:53] *Noisytoot (~noisytoot@tkbibjhmbkvb8.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Aug 11 [13:38] *MinceR gives voice to liberty_box_ rianne liberty_box [13:38] *MinceR gives voice to Noisytoot ● Aug 11 [15:56] *Noisytoot has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) ● Aug 11 [16:04] *Noisytoot (~noisytoot@tkbibjhmbkvb8.irc) has joined #techbytes [16:07] *Noisytoot has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [16:15] *Noisytoot (~noisytoot@tkbibjhmbkvb8.irc) has joined #techbytes [16:18] *MinceR gives voice to Noisytoot ● Aug 11 [21:01] *Noisytoot has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [21:02] *Noisytoot (~noisytoot@tkbibjhmbkvb8.irc) has joined #techbytes [21:04] *MinceR gives voice to Noisytoot [21:05] *Noisytoot has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [21:17] *Noisytoot (~noisytoot@tkbibjhmbkvb8.irc) has joined #techbytes [21:20] *MinceR gives voice to Noisytoot [21:21] *Noisytoot has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [21:37] schestowitz
  • [21:37] schestowitz
    How to Install OpenLDAP Server and LDAP Account Manager on Debian 12
    [21:37] schestowitz
    [21:37] schestowitz

    OpenLDAP is a software implementation of the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP). OpenLDAP is free and open-source software with its BSD-style license called OpenLDAP Public License. Its command-line drive LDAP software is available on most Linux distributions such as CentOS, Ubuntu, Debian, SUSE, and many more.

    [21:37] schestowitz
    [21:37] schestowitz
    • [21:37] schestowitz [21:37] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.howtoforge.com | How to Install OpenLDAP Server and LDAP Account Manager on Debian 12 [21:37] *Noisytoot (~noisytoot@tkbibjhmbkvb8.irc) has joined #techbytes [21:38] *MinceR gives voice to Noisytoot