●● IRC: #techbytes @ Techrights IRC Network: Monday, April 17, 2023 ●● ● Apr 17 [01:40] schestowitz[TR2] http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/04/amendments-to-uk-patents-court-guide.html?showComment=1681656434307#c8210578661661742500 [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 [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.

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 [01:40] schestowitz[TR2] rprivileged by label only, not background.

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 [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.

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 [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.

I a [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. [01:40] schestowitz[TR2] http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/04/construing-claims-to-include-technical.html?showComment=1681639640733#c323279961280909748 [01:40] schestowitz[TR2] F. Hagel

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.

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 [01:40] schestowitz[TR2] gs.

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 [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.

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.

Whatever you might think, there are clearly two lines of case law and it appears imp [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.

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 [01:40] schestowitz[TR2] in passing, in G 1/16.

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 [01:40] schestowitz[TR2] ZR 158/18, the GFC seems to be more aligned with the position of the EBA.

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.

I can agree with you that, if patentability depends on a feature which is not claim [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.
[01:40] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Amendments to UK Patents Court Guide paves way for increased diversity - The IPKat [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 [05:46] *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytes ● Apr 17 [06:01] *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytes [06:47] 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/ [06:47] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.freep.com | Dearborn first city in US to close city hall for Eid al-Fitr holiday ● Apr 17 [13:00] *geert (~geert@7s96mh65r32zk.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Apr 17 [14:25] *geert has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) ● Apr 17 [15:16] schestowitz[TR2] "Liebe Mitglieder, [15:16] schestowitz[TR2] [15:16] schestowitz[TR2] die IGEPA Berlin ist Teil des europischen Gewerkschaftsverbandes Union Syndicale Fdrale (USF) mit Sitz in Brssel. [15:16] schestowitz[TR2] [15:16] schestowitz[TR2] Gem 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. [15:16] schestowitz[TR2] [15:16] schestowitz[TR2] Der Vorstand der IGEPA Berlin hat als Teilnehmer benannt: [15:16] schestowitz[TR2] [15:16] schestowitz[TR2] - Alfred Exner, [15:16] schestowitz[TR2] - Peter Kempen, [15:16] schestowitz[TR2] - Christian Schffler. [15:16] schestowitz[TR2] [15:16] schestowitz[TR2] Weitere Informationen sind auf der USF-Webseite und von den genannten Teilnehmern erhltlich. [15:16] schestowitz[TR2] [15:16] schestowitz[TR2] Der Vorstand der IGEPA Berlin" [15:21] schestowitz[TR2] https://www.thelayoff.com/t/1mb8ZCtD [15:21] schestowitz[TR2] " [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. [15:21] schestowitz[TR2] Chris Williams is a former VP of HR at Microsoft and podcaster, consultant, and TikTok creator. [15:21] schestowitz[TR2] He explains that COVID made way for unprecedented opportunities for tech companies and many over-hired. [15:21] schestowitz[TR2] Williams also says many of today's layoffs are cuts companies wished they could have done years ago. [15:21] schestowitz[TR2] https://www.businessinsider.com/layoffs-microsoft-vp-real-reason-happening-how-much-longer-2023-4 [15:21] schestowitz[TR2] " [15:21] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-Resolving timed out after 10520 milliseconds ( status 0 @ https://www.thelayoff.com/t/1mb8ZCtD ) [15:21] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.businessinsider.com | Microsoft Ex-VP of HR Explains the Real Reasons for Tech Layoffs [15:22] schestowitz[TR2] or rather [15:22] schestowitz[TR2] m,any units lse money [15:22] schestowitz[TR2] now they lose more [15:23] schestowitz[TR2] so companies make cuts [15:23] schestowitz[TR2] the above is whitewash and excuses