●● IRC: #techbytes @ Techrights IRC Network: Thursday, March 21, 2024 ●● ● Mar 21 [00:02] schestowitz http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/03/discrepancies-in-description-should-be.html?showComment=1710853998609#c2783625416560008355 [00:02] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Discrepancies in the description should be amended in line with the claims, but do not affect interpretation of the claims (T 0447/22) - The IPKat [00:02] schestowitz "The logical flaws and inconsistencies in the EPOs approaches to Art 84 and Art 69 EPC number more than a few.

Firstly, the majority line of case law adopts the position that the principle of the primacy of the claims means that, where the claims are clear enough on their own, the description should not be used to interpret the claims. As I have commented on another blog (https://blog.ipappify.de/t-1628-21-on-the-app [00:02] schestowitz lication-of-art-69-in-procedures-before-the-epo-when-it-comes-to-interpretation-of-the-claims/) this can lead to situations where the EPO affords different meanings to the same wording of the same claim, depending upon whether that claim is present in:
- an application or patent monopoly that is the subject of proceedings before the EPO; or
- an application or patent monopoly that is prior art for a later case that is t [00:02] schestowitz he subject of proceedings before the EPO.

Secondly, the majority line of case law asserts that inconsistencies between the description and claims should be eliminated, on the grounds that they could cast doubt on the extent of protection conferred by the patent>. This is problematic for at least four reasons.

(a) The EPOs approach to interpreting the claims (discussed above) means th [00:02] schestowitz at they only determine the plain meaning, as opposed to the intended meaning. According to consistent case law of multiple national courts, only the latter is correct (and is, in fact, what Art 69 EPC and its Protocol demand). Thus, adapting the description to what is likely to be the wrong interpretation of the claims is liable to generate grounds for invalidity due to addition of subject matter.

(b) The [00:02] schestowitz majority case law permits support objections under Art 84 EPC to be raised on a purely hypothetical basis, and without proper reasoning. All that need be asserted is that an alleged inconsistency could cast doubt upon the scope of the claims, not that it actually does so. However, as illustrated by the decision in T447/22, the presence of alleged inconsistencies does not necessarily cast doubt upon how [00:02] schestowitz the claims should be interpreted.

(c) It is well-established case law of the EPO that the claims must be clear on their own. The reasons given for this (see https://www.epo.org/en/legal/case-law/2022/clr_ii_a_1_1.html) essentially relate to legal certainty, with the Boards explaining that:
- the purpose of the claims is to enable the protection conferred by the patent monopoly to be determined)
- [00:02] schestowitz The public should not be left in any doubt as to which subject-matter is covered and which is not; and
- The skilled person should be able to establish the demarcation of the scope of the claim (i.e. its extent of protection) without undue burden.

Thus, if the EPO is satisfied that a claim set complies with the clarity requirement of Art 84 EPC, this would appear to preclude any subsequent asse [00:02] schestowitz rtion that there is any doubt as to which subject-matter is covered and which is not.

In other words, the EPOs own case law contradicts both the theory and (as illustrated by T447/22) the practice behind Art 84 EPC support objections.

(d) The EPO may interpret the claims. However, with the possible exception of cases where issues under Art 123(3) EPC arise, it never determines the extent of protecti [00:02] schestowitz on conferred by the claims. It is therefore nonsensical for the EPO to worry about hypothetical issues relating to a matter (the extent of protection conferred by the claims) upon which it makes no determination and, frankly, is beyond its remit.

All of the above simply deepens the mystery of why the EPO is so insistent on sticking with its description adaptation practice. Cui bono? The only answer to this question tha [00:02] schestowitz t I have is: certainly not patent monopoly applicants or proprietors!" [00:03] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-blog.ipappify.de | T 1628/21 On the application of Art 69 in procedures before the EPO when it comes to interpretation of the claims IP.appify Blog [00:03] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.epo.org | 1.1. Purpose of claims under Article84EPC ● Mar 21 [01:21] *geert has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) ● Mar 21 [03:27] *jacobk (~quassel@6wygwq2t5e2hw.irc) has joined #techbytes [03:44] *jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) ● Mar 21 [06:29] *jacobk (~quassel@838aynky6btpe.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Mar 21 [07:25] *jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) ● Mar 21 [09:48] schestowitz "Bill Gates' TerraPower to Fast Track First Next-Gen Nuclear Plant in US" [09:48] schestowitz x https://www.sciencealert.com/bill-gates-terrapower-to-fast-track-first-next-gen-nuclear-plant-in-us [09:48] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-Bill Gates' TerraPower to Fast Track First Next-Gen Nuclear Plant in US : ScienceAlert [09:48] schestowitz " Microsoft hires Google DeepMind cofounder Mustafa Suleyman to run its consumer AI " [09:48] schestowitz https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/technology/microsoft-hires-google-deepmind-cofounder-mustafa-suleyman-to-run-its-consumer-ai/articleshow/108625373.cms [09:48] schestowitz "Microsoft appoints Inflection AI CEO Mustafa Suleyman to lead its consumer AI unit" [09:48] schestowitz https://siliconangle.com/2024/03/19/microsoft-appoints-inflection-ai-ceo-mustafa-suleyman-lead-consumer-ai-unit/ [09:48] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-economictimes.indiatimes.com | Mustafa Suleyman Microsoft Consumer AI: Microsoft hires Google DeepMind cofounder Mustafa Suleyman to run its consumer AI - The Economic Times [09:48] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-Microsoft appoints Inflection AI CEO Mustafa Suleyman to lead its consumer AI unit - SiliconANGLE [09:57] schestowitz "Microsoft is attracting growing criticism for censoring Bing in China" [09:57] schestowitz x https://www.hindustantimes.com/business/microsoft-is-attracting-growing-criticism-for-censoring-bing-in-china-101710960509284.html [09:57] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.hindustantimes.com | Microsoft is attracting growing criticism for censoring Bing in China - Hindustan Times ● Mar 21 [10:02] *psydroid2 (~psydroid@u8ftxtfux23wk.irc) has joined #techbytes [10:22] schestowitz
  • [10:22] schestowitz
    GNOME 46 is out now with experimental variable refresh rate (VRR) support
    [10:22] schestowitz
    [10:22] schestowitz

    The release many GNOME fans have been waiting for is here and it's looking really fancy. GNOME 46 available now brings on experimental variable refresh rate (VRR) support. There's masses more of course!

    [10:22] schestowitz
    [10:22] schestowitz
    • [10:22] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-GNOME 46 is out now with experimental variable refresh rate (VRR) support | GamingOnLinux [10:48] *Moocher5254 has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [10:51] *x-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) [10:54] *Moocher5254 (~quassel@6i8ckjmvfhgyw.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Mar 21 [11:01] *x-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@qezxp5nudz5uq.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Mar 21 [12:25] *x-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) [12:29] *x-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@qezxp5nudz5uq.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Mar 21 [13:26] *x-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) [13:44] *x-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@qezxp5nudz5uq.irc) has joined #techbytes [13:48] *x-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) ● Mar 21 [14:38] *x-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@qezxp5nudz5uq.irc) has joined #techbytes [14:48] *Noisytoot has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [14:52] *Noisytoot (~noisytoot@tkbibjhmbkvb8.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Mar 21 [15:16] *x-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) [15:58] *x-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@qezxp5nudz5uq.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Mar 21 [16:00] *schestowitz-TR has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [16:06] *libertybox__ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [16:06] *libertybox_ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [16:08] *libertybox_ (~schestowitz_log@24axkg87jqny6.irc) has joined #techbytes [16:08] *libertybox__ (~schestowitz_log@24axkg87jqny6.irc) has joined #techbytes [16:08] *schestowitz-TR (~acer-box@freenode/user/schestowitz) has joined #techbytes [16:09] *libertybox (~schestowitz_log@24axkg87jqny6.irc) has joined #techbytes [16:09] *Techrights-sec has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [16:09] *Techrights-sec2 has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [16:09] *logbackup has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [16:09] *schestowitz-TR (~acer-box@24axkg87jqny6.irc) has joined #techbytes [16:10] *roy (~quassel@24axkg87jqny6.irc) has joined #techbytes [16:10] *Techrights-sec (~quassel@24axkg87jqny6.irc) has joined #techbytes [16:10] *311AGXXXP (~quassel@freenode-vjedmj.ldvb.0amm.hij1op.IP) has joined #techbytes [16:10] *roy (~quassel@freenode-vjedmj.ldvb.0amm.hij1op.IP) has joined #techbytes [16:11] *Techrights-sec has quit (Ping timeout: 120 seconds) [16:11] *logbackup has quit (Ping timeout: 120 seconds) [16:11] *Techrights-sec2 has quit (Ping timeout: 120 seconds) [16:21] *libertybox____ (~schestowitz_log@24axkg87jqny6.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Mar 21 [17:13] *jacobk (~quassel@32hz32it3ih2k.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Mar 21 [18:09] *jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) ● Mar 21 [20:06] *jacobk (~quassel@32hz32it3ih2k.irc) has joined #techbytes [20:55] *jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) ● Mar 21 [21:36] *x-amarsh04 has quit (connection closed) [21:47] *psydroid2 has quit (Quit: KVIrc 5.0.0 Aria http://www.kvirc.net/) ● Mar 21 [22:28] *jacobk (~quassel@99ed6ukzxymmc.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Mar 21 [23:12] *jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)