(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.
| *jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Apr 21 00:09 | |
| *SaphirJD has quit (connection closed) | Apr 21 03:43 | |
| *Noisytoot has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Apr 21 05:30 | |
| *Noisytoot (~noisytoot@tkbibjhmbkvb8.irc) has joined #techbytes | Apr 21 05:30 | |
| *Noisytoot has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Apr 21 05:44 | |
| *Noisytoot (~noisytoot@tkbibjhmbkvb8.irc) has joined #techbytes | Apr 21 05:45 | |
| *Noisytoot has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Apr 21 05:49 | |
| *Noisytoot (~noisytoot@tkbibjhmbkvb8.irc) has joined #techbytes | Apr 21 05:52 | |
| *Noisytoot has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Apr 21 05:55 | |
| *Noisytoot (~noisytoot@tkbibjhmbkvb8.irc) has joined #techbytes | Apr 21 05:56 | |
| *Noisytoot has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Apr 21 06:16 | |
| *Noisytoot (~noisytoot@tkbibjhmbkvb8.irc) has joined #techbytes | Apr 21 06:28 | |
| *Noisytoot has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Apr 21 07:13 | |
| *Noisytoot (~noisytoot@tkbibjhmbkvb8.irc) has joined #techbytes | Apr 21 07:14 | |
| *Noisytoot has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Apr 21 07:18 | |
| *Noisytoot (~noisytoot@tkbibjhmbkvb8.irc) has joined #techbytes | Apr 21 07:20 | |
| schestowitz | <li> | Apr 21 10:43 |
|---|---|---|
| schestowitz | <h5><a href="https://www.theregister.com/2024/04/20/lxqt2_updates_to_qt6/">LXQt 2.0.0 updates to same toolkit as KDE Plasma 6</a></h5> | Apr 21 10:43 |
| schestowitz | <blockquote> | Apr 21 10:43 |
| schestowitz | <p>Version 2.0 of the LXQt desktop updates its foundations to Qt 6, as also used in KDE Plasma 6 – but still has one foot in the Qt 5 past, to ease the transition. </p> | Apr 21 10:43 |
| schestowitz | <p> As promised back in February, bang on schedule, LXQt 2.0.0 is out. This is an important update to one of the lightest full desktop environments for Linux, and moves most of the environment to the current Qt toolkit version 6. That's the same programming toolkit used in KDE Plasma 6 and paves the way for the forthcoming LXQt 6.1 to support Wayland alongside X.org. </p> | Apr 21 10:43 |
| schestowitz | </blockquote> | Apr 21 10:43 |
| schestowitz | </li> | Apr 21 10:43 |
| schestowitz | Apr 21 10:43 | |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.theregister.com | LXQt 2.0.0 updates to same toolkit as KDE Plasma 6 • The Register | Apr 21 10:43 | |
| schestowitz | <li> | Apr 21 10:44 |
| schestowitz | <h5><a href="https://pointieststick.com/2024/04/19/this-week-in-kde-sprints-enhancements-and-kebabs/">This week in KDE: sprints, enhancements, and kebabs</a></h5> | Apr 21 10:44 |
| schestowitz | <blockquote> | Apr 21 10:44 |
| schestowitz | <p>This week I’m attending two sprints: a KDE e.V. Board sprint which is already done, and a KDE Goals mega-sprint, which begins today! My “Automate and systematize internal processes” goal is represented there and I’m hoping we have a great time brainstorming and fixing stuff. And also that we eat lots of Döner kebabs. So many Döner kebabs. All the Döner kebabs. </p> | Apr 21 10:44 |
| schestowitz | </blockquote> | Apr 21 10:44 |
| schestowitz | </li> | Apr 21 10:44 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-pointieststick.com | This week in KDE: sprints, enhancements, and kebabs – Adventures in Linux and KDE | Apr 21 10:44 | |
| *SaphirJD (~SaphirJD@9iz9c2tcvthrn.irc) has joined #techbytes | Apr 21 11:01 | |
| *parsifal (~parsifal@uuar9r28yasyu.irc) has joined #techbytes | Apr 21 12:15 | |
| *psydroid2 (~psydroid@u8ftxtfux23wk.irc) has joined #techbytes | Apr 21 12:35 | |
| *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytes | Apr 21 13:27 | |
| *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytes | Apr 21 13:27 | |
| *VonNaturAustreVe (~von@cpjmm6rhe929q.irc) has joined #techbytes | Apr 21 13:42 | |
| *schestowitz-TR has quit (Quit: Konversation term) | Apr 21 15:44 | |
| *schestowitz-TR2 has quit (Quit: Konversation term) | Apr 21 15:44 | |
| *schestowitz-TR (~acer-box@24axkg87jqny6.irc) has joined #techbytes | Apr 21 15:44 | |
| *schestowitz-TR2 (~acer-box@freenode/user/schestowitz) has joined #techbytes | Apr 21 15:44 | |
| *schestowitz-TR has quit (Quit: Konversation term) | Apr 21 15:50 | |
| *schestowitz-TR2 has quit (Quit: Konversation term) | Apr 21 15:50 | |
| *schestowitz-TR (~acer-box@24axkg87jqny6.irc) has joined #techbytes | Apr 21 15:50 | |
| *schestowitz-TR2 (~acer-box@freenode/user/schestowitz) has joined #techbytes | Apr 21 15:50 | |
| schestowitz | http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/04/imminent-eba-referral-confirmed-on.html?showComment=1713688325272#c3882371960221563696 | Apr 21 16:42 |
| -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 21 16:42 | |
| schestowitz | "When I wrote about different interpretations of claim features, I did not at all allude to the job of conforming the description to the claims. This is not the topic of the present referral and the issues should not been mixed, although they are somehow linked. See my reply to F. Hagel. <br /><br />I was alluding to a situation I have experienced from time to time, and I am certainly not the only one, in which one of the parties, in ge | Apr 21 16:42 |
| schestowitz | neral, the proprietor, came up with a different technical interpretation of claimed features between the ED and the OD or between the OD and a board. <br /><br />Another situation which can happen is, in case of parallel actions before a national court, the interpretation of a claimed feature was quite different there than that before the EPO. Not that the EPO is bound to what has happened at national level, but in both cases, it makes | Apr 21 16:42 |
| schestowitz | the argumentation of the proprietor loosing a lot of its credibility. <br /><br />Such cases illustrate part of your comment: the patent monopoly owner wants to wriggle so that it can tailor its requests and argumentation so as to get the maximum he thinks he is entitled too, while at the same time he attempts to bring in some interpretation of features which he could not any longer claim. <br /><br />To me, a gulf of difference between | Apr 21 16:42 |
| schestowitz | the A and B publications shows that the applicant was originally too greedy and its pretences have been cut down. That a proprietor would still like to see some of what had to be cut down play a role later is understandable, but the deciding body should not accept this. If the deciding body should overlook such an attempt, the opponent, or the other party, will draw the attention to it. <br /><br />Bullies with very deep pockets, have | Apr 21 16:42 |
| schestowitz | and always will, take their financially weaker opposed party all the way to court. <br /><br />This is why I never understood why the basic fee for a counterclaim for nullity at the UPC is quasi twice as high as the basic fee for infringement. I take bets that most SMEs will rather pay an unjustified license fee rather than to risk an action before the UPC." | Apr 21 16:42 |
| schestowitz | http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/04/imminent-eba-referral-confirmed-on.html?showComment=1713633728383#c924388704006303470 | Apr 21 16:42 |
| -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 21 16:42 | |
| schestowitz | "When you look at case law of the boards in which the description is used as a dictionary for a term of a claim, the result is rather poor. This was en vogue in certain boards a while ago, but did not find its way in the case law of the boards. I agree with you that it is very narrow and does not deserve a referral.<br /><br />I can agree but to one of the insights you found in T 447/22 and T 1628/21. <br /><br />For the board in T 447/ | Apr 21 16:42 |
| schestowitz | 22, support by the description is required to avoid inconsistencies between the claims and the description and/or the drawings which could cast doubt on the extent of protection conferred by the patent. The board referred to T 1149/97, Reasons 6.1.11; T 1808/06, Reasons 2; T 2766/17, Reasons 6; T 3097/19, Reasons 24; T 169/20, Reasons 1.2.5). <br />The board added that there is a large body of case law developed by the Boards of Appeal, | Apr 21 16:42 |
| schestowitz | with which the present board concurs, according to which Art 84 is the basis for bringing the description in line with the amended claims in order to avoid inconsistencies, cf. T 977/94, Reasons 6.1; T 1808/06, Reasons 2; T 2293/18, Reasons 3.3.5. Any disclosure in the description and/or drawings inconsistent with the amended subject-matter should normally be deleted or a statement should be added that an embodiment is not covered by t | Apr 21 16:42 |
| schestowitz | he claims, see e.g. T 1808/06, Reasons 2.<br /><br />In T 1628/21, the board stated the following in the catchword: “The principle of primacy of the claims seems to exclude the use of the description and drawings for limiting the claims if an interpretation of the claim in the light of common general knowledge already leads to a technically meaningful result. Similarly, the principle, established by case law, according to which " | Apr 21 16:42 |
| schestowitz | limiting features which are only present in the description and not in the claim cannot be read into a patent monopoly claim" is also fully compatible with Article 69 EPC and Article 1 of the Protocol”.<br /><br />T 447/22 is silent about “unclaimed” examples, and T 1628/21 does by no means say that only “unclaimed” examples cannot be relied upon by the patent monopoly owner to read limitations into the claim. <br /><br / | Apr 21 16:42 |
| schestowitz | >Just an example: if a claim mentions a ventilator, i.e. a device which is moving air, and the description defines a ventilator as only moving hot air, this limitation will not avoid a lack of N if all the features mentioned in the claim are disclosed in a piece of prior art. <br /><br />It is well known that you are very keen to find arguments against the EPO’s policy requiring description amendments to remove inconsistencies betw | Apr 21 16:42 |
| schestowitz | een the description and the claims. The two examples you have given are however of no help in this endeavour. <br /><br />T 56/21 does not yet exist, and a referral is not underway. In the register of EP 3 094 648 it is possible to see that, since the applicant’s reply to the suggestion of the board of a referral and the latter’s reply to third party observations, nothing has happened in the file since 4 months. I have just looked i | Apr 21 16:42 |
| schestowitz | nto it before writing this comment.<br /><br />Should such a referral be filed, I expect a drastic drop in the production from DG1 and of the boards. I am not sure that this would be greeted positively by the EPO’s upper management and that of the BAs. This might explain why we have reached a standstill. I am thus not even sure that we will ever see a referral on this topic." | Apr 21 16:42 |
| schestowitz | "Daniel, I blinked when. I read your:<br /><br />"The only thing the EPO can do during examination and opposition, is to check whether, depending on the deciding body, the applicant/proprietor or the opponent do not come up with diverse interpretations of the claims."<br /><br />I guess you are alluding to the job of conforming the description. I have to say that I am sceptical whether the likelihood that litigants will constr | Apr 21 16:43 |
| schestowitz | ue a claim differently can be restricted by EPO insistence on amendment in prosecution to achieve strict "conformity" between description and claims. I suspect in fact the opposite. The more amendments a litigator has to work with, the greater the difference between the A and B published description, the more opportunities they have to contend for different claim constructions. I like the mantra "Be careful what you ask f | Apr 21 16:43 |
| schestowitz | or". Patent owners in court should have their feet held to the fire, namely what they asked for in the first place. They should be given full faith and credit for it, but also face the consequences if they were too greedy, too speculative or too vague about what they said, in their WO publication, that they had invented. A gulf of difference between the A and B publication can complicate rather than simplify patent monopoly litiga | Apr 21 16:43 |
| schestowitz | tion. The aim should be to resolve patent monopoly disputes short of going to court. Multiplying the number of issues for resolution by litigation only serves to encourage bullies to take their financially weaker opposed party all the way to court." | Apr 21 16:43 |
| schestowitz | "Daniel, I like to think that, here as in the past, there is more on which we agree than disagree. My comment on US drafting was prompted by two thoughts, as follows:<br /><br />1. whether methods of treatment by surgery or therapy are eligible for patent. I vaguely recall a case at the EPO where the issue was with a US Applicant with such claims and the question was whether an amendment to EPC-confom substitute claims could be inserted | Apr 21 16:43 |
| schestowitz | without offence to the relevant EPC provisions (Art 123(2) I guess). Was there not some expression of apppreciation of Applicant's predicament in that case?<br /><br />2. The Golden Rule, namely, do not do to others that which you would want them not to do to you. European applicants draft in the European way and then, sometimes, they go on to file in the USA. One would hope that the US courts are not tempted to find invalid or unenfor | Apr 21 16:43 |
| schestowitz | ceable such patents as are issued by the USPTO, just because they fail to satisfy all the pernickety, esoteric and abstruse elements of US law that are these days listed under the heading "Patent Profanity".<br /><br />The days when US Applicants demand in Europe the "same" claims as they got in the USA are drawing to a close. Applicants are more sophisticated, these days. They have come to realise that their represe | Apr 21 16:43 |
| schestowitz | ntatives can sometimed get them broader protectionin Europe than they got in the USA, all from the same starting PCT application.<br /><br />I agree that patent monopoly owners "know where they are" to a higher degree in Eiurope than in the USA, where litigation still seems to me to be as much of a lottery as ever it was in the past. Perhaps even more so, these days. That is thanks mainly to the EPO and its clear pan-European | Apr 21 16:43 |
| schestowitz | jurisprudence handed down by expert specialist patent monopoly judges. Something we can all treasure." | Apr 21 16:43 |
| schestowitz | "Dear Roel,<br /><br />I would like to summarise your comment as follows: do deciding bodies of the EPO or national courts/UPC have to take into account file prosecution history or not? This is a decision which is reserved to national courts and the EPO has no say into it. <br /><br />A local section of the UPC has tried recently to interpret a claim according to file history, but I do not think that the CoA of the UPC agreed with it. | Apr 21 16:43 |
| schestowitz | <br /><br />The only thing the EPO can do during examination and opposition, is to check whether, depending on the deciding body, the applicant/proprietor or the opponent do not come up with diverse interpretations of the claims. This is clearly not tolerable, but happens from time to time. <br /><br />As an OD is not bound by the decision of an ED or of the decision of a board in appeal upon examination, what you request does not appea | Apr 21 16:43 |
| schestowitz | r feasible. The decision of a different deciding body cannot be restricted to the interpretation of claims given by a preceding deciding body. <br /><br />This is why you see applications granted or patents revoked when the board does not agree with the interpretation of claim features given by the ED or the OD. Conversely, oppositions have been rejected, by setting aside the revocation or the limitation, based on a different interpreta | Apr 21 16:43 |
| schestowitz | tion of the claim by the board. After all, when it comes to patentability, the only benchmark we have ar decisions of the boards. <br /><br />What a national court and the UPC do of all this is their business, and the EPO has, as said above, no say in the matter. <br /><br />I have not yet seen a national court or the UPC accepting to base inventive step or sufficiency on post-published evidence considered determining by the EPO under G | Apr 21 16:43 |
| schestowitz | 2/21. Even some national courts claim to follow the case law of the EBA, but do exactly the opposite. <br /><br />I sincerely hope that the EBA does not get entangled with considerations as you would like it. Free evaluation of evidence remains a too precious good to stifle deciding bodies or even put them in a straight jacket. " | Apr 21 16:43 |
| schestowitz | "I do not fully agree with you that the boards at the EPO do not seem to think about infringement. My question is: have you ever thought why it could be that the EPO is not primarily thinking of infringement?<br /><br />The EPC is for a large part derived from the original four drafts aiming at establishing a patent monopoly under the umbrella of the EEC, now EU. This was the aim of the then called Community, later European Patent. It w | Apr 21 16:43 |
| schestowitz | as a complete package associating grant and post-grant procedures. The “travaux préparatoires” are full of references to those four drafts. <br /><br />One should not forget that, in view of the upcoming of the PCT, and hence the need not to be swamped by unexamined patents, members states of the EEC/EU decided to restart negotiations and open the convention to non-EEC/EU states. <br /><br />In order to arrive at an agreement betw | Apr 21 16:43 |
| schestowitz | een a large number of countries, the only viable way was to separate granting and post-granting procedures, i.e. to open the package previously considered. Post-grant procedures were subject-matter of the Luxembourg Conference of 1975. It was still born for reasons known to all, and has now resuscitated under the avatar of the UPCA and the “Unitary Patent”. <br /><br />That granting cannot be completely distinguished from post-gran | Apr 21 16:43 |
| schestowitz | t use is not at stake, but this is the reason for Art 69 and the Protocol on interpretation. The only, albeit indirect, reference to the scope of protection, is to be found in Art 123(3). <br /><br />That German courts have a different approach is a matter of fact and is not to be queried. Before a decision on infringement or invalidity is made, German courts interpret or construe the claims (the famous “Auslegung”) as provided for | Apr 21 16:43 |
| schestowitz | in Art 69 and in the Protocol. Other courts, like the UK courts, developed their own theory of equivalents. Art 2 of the Protocol mentions equivalents but when the protocol was revised in 2000, the members states did not want to define equivalents. They wanted their jurisdictions to be free to decide what were equivalents.<br /><br />When granting a patent, the EPO and its boards cannot decide taking into account how national courts mig | Apr 21 16:43 |
| schestowitz | ht or might not interpret claims in post-grant procedures. Those are much too diverse. They have to put all applicants on a par and decide, as it their duty, what is patentable or not under the EPC and the interpretation of the EPC given by the EBA. Wat is patentable or not has to be derivable directly and unambiguously from the claims and the corresponding description. Claims do not define an invention, they define a scope of protectio | Apr 21 16:43 |
| schestowitz | n and not a mere “general idea”. If an applicant/proprietor wants protection for a “general idea”, this “general idea” has to be defined directly and unambiguously in the claims. " | Apr 21 16:43 |
| schestowitz | "I can agree with you that the EBA has a duty to nurture rather than weaken the practical implementation of the EPC, and that inventors ought not to lose all protection for a new, useful and clever contribution to the art. Where my agreement stops is why should the EBA actually bother about the drafting practice in the US? <br /><br />I have heard often in my active time, and not later than this week during a consultation, that US appli | Apr 21 16:44 |
| schestowitz | cants, or applicants first filing in the US, actually want obtain the same claims as in the US. This is alas wishful thinking. <br /><br />As far as Art 84 and Art 123(2) are concerned, the way the EPO deals with those questions is certainly more severe than in the US. After 45 years of European practice, should it not be manifest that the law and rules on both sides of the Atlantic are fundamentally different? US applicants had time en | Apr 21 16:44 |
| schestowitz | ough to adjust to the situation. <br /><br />Courts and tribunal have all the wriggle room they need, and no national court or the UPC is legally bound to follow the case law of the EBA and of the BA of the EPO. The case law of the EBA on topics linked with novelty, added matter, and identity of invention, has one advantage: it is clear and coherent. All applicants/proprietors are on a par and when they get their patent monopoly and op | Apr 21 16:44 |
| schestowitz | ponents also know where tey stand. " | Apr 21 16:44 |
| *jacobk (~quassel@8rj47zybnyy4k.irc) has joined #techbytes | Apr 21 17:06 | |
| *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytes | Apr 21 17:24 | |
| *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytes | Apr 21 17:30 | |
| schestowitz | <xxxxx> Have you seen Herr Kettlemeister's posts lately? | Apr 21 19:28 |
| schestowitz | <xxxxx> Complaining about all the fake job listings out there. | Apr 21 19:28 |
| schestowitz | <xxxxx> Trying to sell stock to raise money. | Apr 21 19:28 |
| schestowitz | steroids are not cheap | Apr 21 19:28 |
| schestowitz | ER is very expensive! health issues most likely cost a lot more than the cabin. | Apr 21 19:29 |
| *parsifal has quit (Quit: Leaving) | Apr 21 21:13 | |
| *parsifal (~parsifal@uuar9r28yasyu.irc) has joined #techbytes | Apr 21 22:07 | |
| *psydroid2 has quit (Quit: KVIrc 5.0.0 Aria http://www.kvirc.net/) | Apr 21 22:22 | |
| *jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Apr 21 22:29 | |
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.