(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[TR2] | http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/04/amendments-to-uk-patents-court-guide.html?showComment=1681656434307#c8210578661661742500 | Apr 17 01:40 |
|---|---|---|
| schestowitz[TR2] | By "increasing diversity," the IP profession is focussing on women and "people of colour", which is great for visible box ticking. Not much else. A diverse profession would be one where, based on merit, the profession is staffed by individuals from diverse backgrounds. Sex and colour are not backgrounds, though in cases they may be related. What I see from working in the IP profession is that the majority of peo | Apr 17 01:40 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | ple have the same social background and the same ways of thinking and behaviour. The majority come from well off backgrounds, privately educated, rarely lower-middle class, and with a very odd exception, not working class.<br /><br />Diversity committees are dominated by individuals from privileged backgrounds, battling for the "underprivileged" - as the professions define them - women, people of colour, LGBTQ, etc. Unde | Apr 17 01:40 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | rprivileged by label only, not background.<br /><br />I find most people strangely blind to their privilege, and ignorant of the real access issues. Many alumni of Eton and Cheltenham Ladies College tick the diversity boxes, for example, but their access to the professions is hardly hindered as much as most. Any white male who practices discrimination against someone for their sex, colour, or orientation is hardly going to welcome | Apr 17 01:40 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | the white person who went to the wrong school or University or is not a member of the right club, or has the wrong accent. Lets face it, having the wrong accent is an indicator of such factors.<br /><br />Personally, I do not tick any of the correct boxes. I applied to every patent private practice in the UK for a trainee position whilst in possession of several degrees, one directly IP related, and an experienced background higjly | Apr 17 01:40 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | relevant to several technology areas. I admit I am a little odd, and there may even be a new label for how I am. And I accept my personality may be how, after interview, I do not receive job offers. However, I did not receive a single offer of interview from private practice, which, bearing in mind the quality of my academic qualifications, means something other than my individual oddness must have been responsible.<br /><br />I a | Apr 17 01:40 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | m now, if I say so myself, not a half-bad patent attorney. No thanks to the majority of the profession that looked down their noses at my background, men and women alike. | Apr 17 01:40 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/04/construing-claims-to-include-technical.html?showComment=1681639640733#c323279961280909748 | Apr 17 01:40 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | F. Hagel<br /><br />That you do not agree with some of my positions is nothing new under the sun. But to claim that I exaggerate goes a trifle too far and is actually not correct. <br /><br />In view of the diverging case law I have presented when I have introduced a possible referral, it is manifest that some boards do not limit the application of Art 69 and its protocol to assess compliance with Art 123(3) in opposition proceedin | Apr 17 01:40 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | gs. <br /><br />Using Art 69 and its protocol goes back, inter alia, to T 16/87. It is therefore noticeable that some boards would, in sense, like to bring T 16/87 back to life and see Art 69 and its protocol applied in general in proceedings before the EPO. One further recent example is T 2475/18 which I have commented together with T 1473/19. Already there I brought in a proposal for a referral. In T 1473/19, Reasons 3.7-3.9, the | Apr 17 01:40 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | board explicitly disagreed with the statements in T 1279/04, and hence with T 30/17, both representative of the second line of case law. <br /><br />The decisions you quote, T 2502/19 and T 1553/19, belong to what I would call the second line of case law. They do however not render moot the first line of case law. I would add T 821/20. <br /><br />Whatever you might think, there are clearly two lines of case law and it appears imp | Apr 17 01:40 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | ortant, at least to me, but I know that I am not the only one, that the situation is clarified by the EBA. <br /><br />If Art 69 and its protocol are used in assessing the conformity of a claim with Art 123(2), there is a real danger that the whole construction of case law of the EBA in matter of novelty/added matter is becoming obsolete. It is noticeable that neither G 1/03 nor G 2/10 mention Art 69. Art 69 is mentioned, but only | Apr 17 01:40 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | in passing, in G 1/16. <br /><br />Systematically interpreting the claims in the light of the description actually corresponds to the practice of the German Federal Court (BGH). In X ZR 161/12 and the preceding decisions the GFC considered that a patent is not systematically to be revoked if a claim contains added matter. The added matter is however not to be taken into account when deciding on N or IS. In a more recent decision X | Apr 17 01:40 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | ZR 158/18, the GFC seems to be more aligned with the position of the EBA. <br /><br />When you discuss “whether disclosed but unclaimed features can be taken into account” it is manifest that you want indirectly to bring back the question of the adaptation of the description. Your position on this topic is as known and clear as mine. <br /><br />I can agree with you that, if patentability depends on a feature which is not claim | Apr 17 01:40 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | ed, this feature should be added into the claim. But this does not withhold the applicant/proprietor to make clear what is claimed or not. <br /> | Apr 17 01:40 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Amendments to UK Patents Court Guide paves way for increased diversity - The IPKat | Apr 17 01:40 | |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Construing the claims to include technical effects mentioned in the description (T 1924/20) - The IPKat | Apr 17 01:40 | |
| *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytes | Apr 17 05:46 | |
| *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytes | Apr 17 06:01 | |
| schestowitz[TR2] | x https://eu.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/wayne/2023/04/15/dearborn-first-city-in-us-to-close-city-hall-for-eid-al-fitr-holiday/70102066007/ | Apr 17 06:47 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.freep.com | Dearborn first city in US to close city hall for Eid al-Fitr holiday | Apr 17 06:47 | |
| *geert (~geert@7s96mh65r32zk.irc) has joined #techbytes | Apr 17 13:00 | |
| *geert has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Apr 17 14:25 | |
| schestowitz[TR2] | "Liebe Mitglieder, | Apr 17 15:16 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Apr 17 15:16 | |
| schestowitz[TR2] | die IGEPA Berlin ist Teil des europäischen Gewerkschaftsverbandes Union Syndicale Fédérale (USF) mit Sitz in Brüssel. | Apr 17 15:16 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Apr 17 15:16 | |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Gemäß Artikel 8 des USF-Statuts tritt alle vier Jahre der Kongress der USF (deren oberstes Organ) zusammen. Er findet vom 6. bis zum 9. Mai 2023 in Alicante statt. | Apr 17 15:16 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Apr 17 15:16 | |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Der Vorstand der IGEPA Berlin hat als Teilnehmer benannt: | Apr 17 15:16 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Apr 17 15:16 | |
| schestowitz[TR2] | - Alfred Exner, | Apr 17 15:16 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | - Peter Kempen, | Apr 17 15:16 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | - Christian Schäffler. | Apr 17 15:16 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Apr 17 15:16 | |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Weitere Informationen sind auf der USF-Webseite und von den genannten Teilnehmern erhältlich. | Apr 17 15:16 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Apr 17 15:16 | |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Der Vorstand der IGEPA Berlin" | Apr 17 15:16 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | https://www.thelayoff.com/t/1mb8ZCtD | Apr 17 15:21 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | " | Apr 17 15:21 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | I'm a former Microsoft VP of HR. Here are the real reasons why layoffs are happening and how much longer they'll last. | Apr 17 15:21 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Chris Williams is a former VP of HR at Microsoft and podcaster, consultant, and TikTok creator. | Apr 17 15:21 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | He explains that COVID made way for unprecedented opportunities for tech companies and many over-hired. | Apr 17 15:21 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Williams also says many of today's layoffs are cuts companies wished they could have done years ago. | Apr 17 15:21 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | https://www.businessinsider.com/layoffs-microsoft-vp-real-reason-happening-how-much-longer-2023-4 | Apr 17 15:21 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | " | Apr 17 15:21 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-Resolving timed out after 10520 milliseconds ( status 0 @ https://www.thelayoff.com/t/1mb8ZCtD ) | Apr 17 15:21 | |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.businessinsider.com | Microsoft Ex-VP of HR Explains the Real Reasons for Tech Layoffs | Apr 17 15:21 | |
| schestowitz[TR2] | or rather | Apr 17 15:22 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | m,any units lse money | Apr 17 15:22 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | now they lose more | Apr 17 15:22 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | so companies make cuts | Apr 17 15:23 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | the above is whitewash and excuses | Apr 17 15:23 |
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.