●● IRC: #techbytes @ Techrights IRC Network: Saturday, April 20, 2024 ●● ● Apr 20 [00:01] *psydroid2 has quit (Quit: KVIrc 5.0.0 Aria http://www.kvirc.net/) [00:33] *jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [00:41] *parsifal has quit (Quit: Leaving) ● Apr 20 [01:41] schestowitz http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/04/imminent-eba-referral-confirmed-on.html?showComment=1713506218239#c2958969609869923537 [01:42] schestowitz "Will the referral also include a question as to whether explanations given by the applicant/proprietor during pre-grant prosecution and post-grant opposition, present in the file, can -or shall- be used to interprete the claim, especially (or only?) in case such explanations rendered the claim patentable whereas without such explanation they were not? Could be explanations relating to novelty (the explanation giving, e.g., a more narro [01:42] schestowitz w interpretation than the, possibly not fully clear, claim term as such), to inventive step or enablement (e.g., in relation to post-filed evidence)? If such explanations were essential to get the claim granted, it seems undebatable that they shall also be used when interpreting the claims in opposition as well as in national/UPC revocation and natiomal/UPC infringement, isn't it?" [01:42] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Imminent EBA referral confirmed on the question of using the description to interpret the claims (T 0439/22) - The IPKat ● Apr 20 [02:02] *SaphirJD has quit (connection closed) [02:47] *Noisytoot has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [02:48] *Noisytoot (~noisytoot@tkbibjhmbkvb8.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Apr 20 [03:08] *Noisytoot has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [03:09] *Noisytoot (~noisytoot@tkbibjhmbkvb8.irc) has joined #techbytes [03:26] *Noisytoot has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [03:27] *Noisytoot (~noisytoot@tkbibjhmbkvb8.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Apr 20 [04:00] *Noisytoot has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [04:01] *Noisytoot (~noisytoot@tkbibjhmbkvb8.irc) has joined #techbytes [04:29] *Noisytoot has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [04:36] *Noisytoot (~noisytoot@tkbibjhmbkvb8.irc) has joined #techbytes [04:43] *Noisytoot has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [04:54] *Noisytoot (~noisytoot@tkbibjhmbkvb8.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Apr 20 [06:07] *jacobk (~quassel@838aynky6btpe.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Apr 20 [07:43] *Noisytoot has quit (Quit: ZNC 1.8.2 - https://znc.in) [07:44] *Noisytoot (~noisytoot@tkbibjhmbkvb8.irc) has joined #techbytes [07:54] *Noisytoot has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [07:55] *Noisytoot (~noisytoot@tkbibjhmbkvb8.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Apr 20 [08:31] schestowitz
  • [08:31] schestowitz
    DISA publishes STIG for Ubuntu 22.04 LTS
    [08:31] schestowitz
    [08:31] schestowitz

    DISA, the Defense Information Systems Agency, has published their Security Technical Implementation Guide (STIG) for Ubuntu 22.04 LTS. The STIG is free for the public to download from the DOD Cyber Exchange. Canonical has been working with DISA since we published Ubuntu 22.04 LTS to draft this STIG, and we are delighted that it is now finalised and available for everyone to use.

    [08:31] schestowitz

    We are now developing the Ubuntu Security Guide profile with a target release in summer 2024.

    [08:31] schestowitz
    [08:31] schestowitz
    • [08:31] schestowitz [08:31] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-DISA publishes STIG for Ubuntu 22.04 LTS | Ubuntu ● Apr 20 [09:44] schestowitz "Rand Paul: If Congress Bans TikTok, Is Apple Next?" [09:44] schestowitz x https://reason.com/2024/04/19/if-they-ban-tiktok-is-apple-next/ [09:44] schestowitz # troll post [09:44] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-reason.com | Rand Paul: If Congress Bans TikTok, Is Apple Next? ● Apr 20 [10:35] *jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [10:37] *SaphirJD (~SaphirJD@9iz9c2tcvthrn.irc) has joined #techbytes [10:38] *parsifal (~parsifal@uuar9r28yasyu.irc) has joined #techbytes [10:49] *psydroid2 (~psydroid@u8ftxtfux23wk.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Apr 20 [11:35] *jacobk (~quassel@32hz32it3ih2k.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Apr 20 [15:09] *x-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) [15:14] *x-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@qezxp5nudz5uq.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Apr 20 [16:56] schestowitz http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/04/imminent-eba-referral-confirmed-on.html?showComment=1713534918724#c727001923556333893 [16:56] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Imminent EBA referral confirmed on the question of using the description to interpret the claims (T 0439/22) - The IPKat [16:56] schestowitz "Yes and No, Yo-Yo. To my mind, the essential question goes wider. How shall the EBA lay down a path that enriches rather than empoverishes EPO jurisprudence. IThe EBA has a duty to nurture rather than weaken the practical implementation of the EPC. By that, I mean that it has to lay down case law that will encourage tribunals to do justice between the litigants and, more widely, balance the legitimate interests of patent monopoly owner [16:56] schestowitz s and of their competitors by delivering "fair" protection for inventors with "reasonable" legal certainty for those competing with the patent monopoly owner.

    Actions should have consequences. Incompetent drafting of patent monopoly applications should have negative consequences. But inventors ought not to lose all protection for a new, useful and clever contribution to the art just because (say) the draft [16:56] schestowitz er was in the USA, conscientiously doing their best to get their client a full measure of scope due to the inventor, following best US patent monopoly drafting practice.

    Boards, courts and tribunals need to be given enough "wiggle room" on claim construction to strike the balance accurately. The EPO should allow inventors "their day in court" rather than using the combined effects of Art 84 and 123(2) in p [16:56] schestowitz rosecution to deprive the Applicant of a chance, after grant, to enforce claims of scope proportionate to the contribution to the art.

    I think it not impossible for an enlightened EBA to achieve all these objectives. Fingers crossed, thumbs pressed" ● Apr 20 [20:19] *psydroid2 has quit (Quit: KVIrc 5.0.0 Aria http://www.kvirc.net/) [20:25] *jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [20:51] schestowitz http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/04/imminent-eba-referral-confirmed-on.html?showComment=1713511704511#c433065780536101469 [20:51] schestowitz "To me the problem seems to be, that the boards at the EPO do not seem to think about infringement.
    The approach of the German courts is to me more logical: to the wording of the claims can not be added or subtracted, but the claims are interpreted in a way that the claim matter is usually(!) meant to encompass the examples given in the description. Only in exceptional situations an interpretation that none of the examples in the [20:51] schestowitz description is covered by the claims is possible.
    After all, the patentee will usually want to protect not only the examples, but the "general idea".
    If, as in this case, "spiralled" is not covered by "gathered" an infringement action should no longer be possible against a "spiralling" competitor (I am pretty sure Philips Morris will claim in infringement proceedings, that the Persian K [20:51] schestowitz at is dry, while at the EPO it is wet...)." [20:51] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Imminent EBA referral confirmed on the question of using the description to interpret the claims (T 0439/22) - The IPKat [20:51] schestowitz http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/04/imminent-eba-referral-confirmed-on.html?showComment=1713546750326#c5957673794964360271 [20:51] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Imminent EBA referral confirmed on the question of using the description to interpret the claims (T 0439/22) - The IPKat [20:51] schestowitz "The issue in this decision relates to the case of the description used as a dictionary for a term of a claim. It is interesting but very narrow and it did not deserve a referral to the EBA.

    In contrast, the issue of the application of Art 69 to validity assessments is handled on a broad level in recent decisions T 447/22 and T 1628/21 from different BOAs, which provide consistent and sensible insights : (i) the primacy of th [20:51] schestowitz e claims, (ii) the red line that unclaimed examples cannot be relied upon by the patent monopoly owner to read limitations into the claim, as this is the case for examination of applications, and (iii) the claims must be given the broadest sensible interpretation, as this is the case also during the examination of applications.

    An significant implication is that disclaiming clauses or the deletion of unclaimed examples [20:51] schestowitz are held irrelevant to the interpretation of claims, which removes the EPOs argument in support of its policy requiring description amendments to remove inconsistencies between the description and the claims.

    On the latter issue, a referral to the EBA is already underway in T 56/21 but it seems to be at a standstill." ● Apr 20 [21:05] *parsifal has quit (Quit: Leaving) ● Apr 20 [22:10] *Noisytoot has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [22:12] *Noisytoot (~noisytoot@tkbibjhmbkvb8.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Apr 20 [23:31] *jacobk (~quassel@8rj47zybnyy4k.irc) has joined #techbytes