IRC: #techbytes @ Techrights IRC Network: Sunday, August 20, 2023

schestowitz

like, you add a job to it

schestowitz

and it's there in a simple file

schestowitz

you back up the file

schestowitz

K.I.S.S.

*geert has quit (connection closed)

Aug 20 02:48

*GNUmoon2 has quit (connection closed)

Aug 20 02:50

*GNUmoon2 (~GNUmoon@i9qtak2d2eia6.irc) has joined #techbytes

Aug 20 02:50

*MinceR gives voice to GNUmoon2

Aug 20 02:53

*asusbox (~rianne@3stvfjh5iuw88.irc) has joined #techbytes

Aug 20 04:31

*rianne__ (~rianne@3stvfjh5iuw88.irc) has joined #techbytes

Aug 20 04:31

*psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytes

Aug 20 04:53

*DaemonFC has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)

Aug 20 06:32

*DaemonFC (~daemonfc@gfb5nj2ry585q.irc) has joined #techbytes

Aug 20 06:46

*rianne__ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)

Aug 20 08:51

*asusbox has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)

Aug 20 08:51

*DaemonFC has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)

Aug 20 08:53

*DaemonFC (~daemonfc@tyh9uypqaqvwk.irc) has joined #techbytes

Aug 20 08:54

*Fucking-Riannes-Ass (~Fucking-Riannes-Ass@5j2hsrvteqpeu.irc) has joined #techbytes

Aug 20 10:12

*Fucking-Riannes-Ass has quit (Quit: leaving)

Aug 20 10:15

*psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytes

Aug 20 11:44

*MinceR gives voice to DaemonFC psydruid

Aug 20 13:41

schestowitz

"Sorry, I did not mean to imply that the output of an "AI" is automatically ( or ever) covered by a copyright. I just wanted to say, that the camera certainly does not own any right to the picture (nor an ape using a camera, compare the PETA case...)" http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/08/bad-cases-make-bad-law-has-dabus-ai.html?showComment=1692452389860#c6540326755260469541

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Bad cases make bad law: Has DABUS "the AI inventor" actually invented anything? - The IPKat

schestowitz

"On Friday, Judge Beryl Howell issued an opinion in Dr. Stephen Thaler’s challenge against the U.S. Copyright Office (USCO) over the denial of his application for a work generated entirely using generative artificial intelligence (AI) technology. The opinion supports the USCO’s refusal to register a work in which the claimant disclosed in the application that the image was the result of an AI system, called The Creativity Machine. T

schestowitz

he case is Stephen Thaler v. Shira Perlmutter and The United States Copyright Office (1:22-cv-01564) (June 2, 2022)."

https://ipwatchdog.com/2023/08/19/copyright-registration-works-created-by-generative-ai/id=165444/

schestowitz

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipwatchdog.com | Court Says No Copyright Registration for Works Created by Generative AI

http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/08/adding-matter-by-amending-description.html?showComment=1692459469619#c1265837368054531674

schestowitz

schestowitz

">Mr Thomas, you have correctly identified the fact that the EPO's approach to interpreting the claims has implications for other provisions that the EPO examines, such as novelty and inventive step. But why should that fact make any difference to the validity (or otherwise) of my observations? You also ask how I can speak of a "non-EPC" approach to interpreting the claims. I would answer that with questions of my o

schestowitz

wn: Is there any provision of the EPC other than Art 69 that sets out how the claims should be interpreted? And do we not agree that the EPO does not follow (all of) Art 69 when interpreting the claims? To be clear, I do not "reproach" the EPO for the manner in which they choose to interpret the claims of patents and patent applications. I merely observe that how they approach that task is not in accor

schestowitz

dance with Art 69 EPC (and its Protocol). Indeed, as you will see from one of my earlier comments, I believe that it would be unreasonable to expect EPO examiners to conduct the kind of thorough, detailed analysis that is demanded by Art 69 EPC. A pragmatic approach to claim interpretation is clearly needed to prevent examination of patent applications turning into a long, drawn out and eye-wateringly expensive process. Howev

schestowitz

er, it is important to remember that the results of such a pragmatic approach will only represent a rough approximation of the true (ie Art 69 EPC) result. Sometimes the rough approximation will be surprisingly close to the true result. Other times not so much ... as evidenced by the outcome of some opposition proceedings. Relying upon a rough approximation may not be ideal when assessing novelty and inventive step. H

schestowitz

owever, doing so is unlikely to result in amendments to the claims that add subject matter. This is because such amendments will need to be based squarely upon the disclosure of the application as filed. By way of contrast, relying upon a rough approximation (of the meaning of the claims) is highly likely to lead to added matter problems if the description is strictly adapted to the roughly approximate

schestowitz

meaning of the claims. For example, matter could be added (as per Ensygnia v Shell) if reliance upon the rough approximation leads to the mislabelling of an embodiment as "not the invention according to the claims". The problem here is the use of a roughly approximate meaning of the claims as a guide for amendments to the description. It is really self-evident that a practice that insists upon strict<

schestowitz

/b> conformity with such a rough approximation is, at least on occasion, going to produce some terrible results."

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Adding matter by amending the description to exclude embodiments (Ensygnia v Shell [2023] EWHC 1495 (Pat)) - The IPKat

http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/08/adding-matter-by-amending-description.html?showComment=1692450528679#c428209270884600816

schestowitz

schestowitz

"It could indeed be, Daniel, that Ensygnia is of little help but can that also be said of the pemetrexed case, limited during prosecution in the EPO to the sodium salt of pemetrexed because i) that was the only worked example, and ii) in the application as filed there was no claim at the "pemetrexed" level of generalisation. Instead, the inventive concept was expressed at a level of generalisation wider than just pemetrexed. H

schestowitz

ad the drafter of the patent included a claim at the "pemetrexed salt" intermediate level of generalisation there would likely have been no litigation and no controversy. The potassium salt would have been an infringement, no doubt, no controversy. But there was litigation, as to whether the potassium salt infringed the sodium salt claim under any pertaining Doctrine of Equivalents. The judges had to decide between

schestowitz

legal certainty and a scope of protection that gave "fair" protection to the patentee, having regard to the nature of the inventive concept given to the public through the 18 month WO A publication.. We can contemplate what would have happened if the current strict Art 84 conformity regime had been in effect, in the case of the pemetrexed patent application. A description of the sodium embodiment and everything els

schestowitz

e expunged from the description or labelled "not the invention". Consequence: inventive concept re-defined as the sodium salt, nothing more. Little or no chance then for the patent owner successfully to assert the patent successfully against the potassium variant. And all for want of a dependent claim at the key intermediate level of generalisation. Not sure whether asking the EBA whether the EPO should, prior to gr

schestowitz

ant, acknowledge the existence of Art 69 EPC will sweep away at a stroke the entire Art 84 "conformity" controversy. Not even sure there is any point in asking the EBA the question. The only lesson we can take from all this debate is that drafters need to be more thoughtful, prosecuters need to be ultra-careful and that (some) EPO Examiners need to be mindful of the statutory obligation to i) grant patents and ii)

schestowitz

allow Applicants the chance to acquire a scope of protection that is "fair" and commensurate with what they have disclosed to the public as their valuable, new, useful and inventive contribution to the progress of technology. Guidelines authors, please note!"

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Adding matter by amending the description to exclude embodiments (Ensygnia v Shell [2023] EWHC 1495 (Pat)) - The IPKat

schestowitz

URGENT: An IMPOSTER account posting ILLEGAL and EXTREMIST stuff

schestowitz

This account is an IMPOSTER:

https://social.linux.pizza/@schestowitz

schestowitz

schestowitz

Please remove ASAP.

schestowitz

Regards,

-TechBytesBot/#techbytes-Dr. Roy Schestowitz (罗伊) (@schestowitz@social.linux.pizza) - Linux.Pizza

*Disconnected (Connection reset by peer).

*Now talking on #techbytes

*Topic for #techbytes is: Welcome to the official channel of the TechBytes Audiocast

*Topic for #techbytes set by schestowitz!~roy@haii6za73zabc.irc at Tue Jun 1 20:21:34 2021

*libertybox (~schestowitz_log@3stvfjh5iuw88.irc) has joined #techbytes

*MinceR gives voice to schestowitz-TR2 liberty_box_ libertybox__

*MinceR gives voice to viera DaemonFC XFaCE

*MinceR gives voice to liberty_box tool Techrights-sec

*MinceR gives voice to rianne_ psydruid GNUmoon2

*MinceR gives voice to Noisytoot TechBytesBot techrights[sec]_

*MinceR gives voice to libertybox_ Techrights-sec2 libertybox

Aug 20 21:05

*MinceR gives voice to schestowitz[TR2]

Aug 20 21:05

*You are now known as schestowitz

Aug 20 21:06

schestowitz

"@ Proof of the pudding, Your considerations are interesting and deserve to be commented. In my eyes, one problem has to be cleared first: it has to be decided first whether Art 69 is at all applicable in proceedings before the EPO or only by way of exception, when features in a claim are unclear or when assessing whether the scope of protection has been extended in opposition. The present case law of the boards i

schestowitz

s diverging on this matter. Without this clarification any further discussion, also on the adaptation of the description does not appears very effective. You reproach the EPO that it “does not properly (i.e. using Art 69 EPC) determine the meaning of the wording of the claims”. As said it has to be decided first whether and how Art 69 is to be applied in procedures before the EPO. Examiners at the EPO are not

schestowitz

stupid and it can be considered that they have the knowledge of the person skilled in the art in their technical area. It will thus allow them to discriminate between a cat and a dog, and even between the different races of cats and dogs. If there is a claim to a Great Dane and the description says that under a Great Dane one can also understand a Chihuahua, we have a problem. Or do we not? You claim that there is a bigger

schestowitz

risk with option 2, but I have not yet seen one case like this. You infer this risk from Ensygnia v Shell, but in this case, the applicant tried, by amending the description in view of a potential infringement, to give a broader meaning to a feature contained in a claim. Whether the applicant had previously conceded in the description what has to be understood as being the claimed invention could not have played a determinin

schestowitz

g role. It was more convenient for the judge to start with the own acknowledgment of the proprietor, but even without this acknowledgment, I doubt that the decision of the judge would have been different. I am therefore of the opinion that Ensygnia v Shell does not help very much either way. You further claim that the EPO never determines the true meaning of the wording of the claims. I beg to disagree. How could a deciding

schestowitz

body of the EPO decide on Novelty, Inventive Step as well as added-matter or sufficiency without giving the features in a claim their ordinary meaning? I certainly do not share your view that, it is improper for the EPO to remedy to “alleged contradictions / inconsistencies (between the claims and the description), in that they derive from a non-EPC interpretation of the claims”? What allows you to speak about a non-EPC interpretati

schestowitz

on of the claims? "

http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/08/adding-matter-by-amending-description.html?showComment=1692439978466#c2634286829062914121

schestowitz