(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.
| *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytes | Jan 25 02:02 | |
| *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytes | Jan 25 02:03 | |
| schestowitz[TR] | "The Local Staff Committee Munich invites all staff to a General Assembly on Wednesday 24 January, at 15.00h to be held in hybrid form in the Pschorrhöfe Canteen [...] | Jan 25 04:56 |
|---|---|---|
| schestowitz[TR] | The draft resolution proposed for adoption by staff is now available here. | Jan 25 04:56 |
| schestowitz[TR] | Agenda | Jan 25 04:56 |
| schestowitz[TR] | Unattainable targets and appraisal reports | Jan 25 04:56 |
| schestowitz[TR] | Quality | Jan 25 04:56 |
| schestowitz[TR] | Vote on resolution | Jan 25 04:56 |
| schestowitz[TR] | Career Judgments and our response | Jan 25 04:56 |
| schestowitz[TR] | Salary adjustment procedure | Jan 25 04:56 |
| schestowitz[TR] | Any other business | Jan 25 04:56 |
| schestowitz[TR] | "Dear Colleagues, | Jan 25 04:57 |
| schestowitz[TR] | Last year SUEPO provided a request for review template (RfR) to challenge the Rewards Exercise 2023. | Jan 25 04:57 |
| schestowitz[TR] | Some of you submitted a RfR and received a negative decision from the administration. The deadline to submit an appeal is within 3 months from the date of your RfR rejection. For some of you it is therefore already the time to file an internal appeal. | Jan 25 04:57 |
| schestowitz[TR] | SUEPO has prepared a model Internal Appeal Template that can be adapted to your personal case. The template is available to SUEPO members - | Jan 25 04:57 |
| schestowitz[TR] | Please contact the SUEPO office at your place of employment if you are a SUEPO member and did not receive the template via email or if you would like to become a member and receive the template." | Jan 25 04:57 |
| schestowitz[TR] | " PS: SUEPO templates are prepared by lawyers specialized in international labour law, and the associated costs are covered by the yearly contributions of union members. A warm thank you to our faithful members! And please consider joining SUEPO if you haven’t done so yet."" | Jan 25 04:57 |
| *schestowitz[TR2] has quit (Ping timeout: 120 seconds) | Jan 25 05:49 | |
| *Disconnected (Connection timed out). | Jan 25 06:03 | |
| *Now talking on #techbytes | Jan 25 06:03 | |
| *schestowitz[TR2] (~schestowi@freenode/user/schestowitz) has joined #techbytes | Jan 25 06:03 | |
| *u-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) | Jan 25 08:06 | |
| *u-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@dc77dxzcmjmaq.irc) has joined #techbytes | Jan 25 08:33 | |
| *u-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) | Jan 25 08:38 | |
| *u-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@dc77dxzcmjmaq.irc) has joined #techbytes | Jan 25 08:39 | |
| *u-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) | Jan 25 08:49 | |
| *u-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@dc77dxzcmjmaq.irc) has joined #techbytes | Jan 25 08:49 | |
| *l0g (~UniX@HelpDesk/Committee/l0g) has joined #techbytes | Jan 25 10:31 | |
| *l0g (~UniX@HelpDesk/Committee/l0g) has joined #techbytes | Jan 25 10:31 | |
| schestowitz[TR] | x https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/technology/microsoft-hits-3-trillion-value-cementing-strength-of-ai-rally/articleshow/107123952.cms | Jan 25 11:20 |
| schestowitz[TR] | # how much /more/ does m$ bring in through buying and selling its own stock | Jan 25 11:20 |
| schestowitz[TR] | # than through software and services? | Jan 25 11:20 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-economictimes.indiatimes.com | microsoft share price: Microsoft hits $3 trillion value, cementing strength of AI rally - The Economic Times | Jan 25 11:20 | |
| *psydroid2 (~psydroid@u8ftxtfux23wk.irc) has joined #techbytes | Jan 25 11:26 | |
| *l0g has quit (Quit: Going offline, see ya! (www.adiirc.com)) | Jan 25 11:52 | |
| *l0g has quit (Quit: Going offline, see ya! (www.adiirc.com)) | Jan 25 11:52 | |
| *schestowitz-TR2 has quit (Quit: Konversation term) | Jan 25 12:49 | |
| *acer-box has quit (Quit: Konversation term) | Jan 25 12:49 | |
| *acer-box has quit (Quit: Konversation term) | Jan 25 12:49 | |
| *schestowitz-TR2 (~acer-box@24axkg87jqny6.irc) has joined #techbytes | Jan 25 12:49 | |
| *acer-box (~acer-box@freenode/user/schestowitz) has joined #techbytes | Jan 25 12:49 | |
| *acer-box (~acer-box@freenode/user/schestowitz) has joined #techbytes | Jan 25 12:49 | |
| *schestowitz-TR2 has quit (Quit: Konversation term) | Jan 25 12:55 | |
| *acer-box has quit (Quit: Konversation term) | Jan 25 12:55 | |
| *acer-box has quit (Quit: Konversation term) | Jan 25 12:55 | |
| *schestowitz-TR2 (~acer-box@24axkg87jqny6.irc) has joined #techbytes | Jan 25 13:05 | |
| *schestowitz-TR2 has quit (Quit: Konversation term) | Jan 25 13:38 | |
| *schestowitz-TR2 (~acer-box@24axkg87jqny6.irc) has joined #techbytes | Jan 25 13:38 | |
| *acer-box (~acer-box@freenode/user/schestowitz) has joined #techbytes | Jan 25 13:38 | |
| *acer-box (~acer-box@freenode/user/schestowitz) has joined #techbytes | Jan 25 13:38 | |
| *schestowitz-TR2 has quit (Quit: Konversation term) | Jan 25 13:44 | |
| *acer-box has quit (Quit: Konversation term) | Jan 25 13:44 | |
| *acer-box has quit (Quit: Konversation term) | Jan 25 13:44 | |
| *schestowitz-TR2 (~acer-box@24axkg87jqny6.irc) has joined #techbytes | Jan 25 13:44 | |
| *acer-box (~acer-box@freenode/user/schestowitz) has joined #techbytes | Jan 25 13:45 | |
| *acer-box (~acer-box@freenode/user/schestowitz) has joined #techbytes | Jan 25 13:45 | |
| schestowitz[TR] | http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/01/deletion-of-claim-like-clauses-board-of.html?showComment=1706120284122#c4769346048946451613 | Jan 25 18:15 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Deletion of claim-like clauses: Board of Appeal finds legal basis for adaptation of the description from "the EPC as a whole" (T 0438/22) - The IPKat | Jan 25 18:15 | |
| schestowitz[TR] | "The suggestion in T 439/22 for a referral about the interpretation of the claims under Art 69 is ill-founded, there is no divide of the BOAs on this issue.<br /><br />Article 69 is specifically aimed at the determination of the extent of protection and not at the examination of applications. During the examination, the settled case law regarding the interpretation of claims is that their terms must be given their “broadest techni | Jan 25 18:15 |
| schestowitz[TR] | cally sensible meaning” : see CLB I.C.4.1 and CLB II.A.6.1.<br /><br />This implies that the description cannot be used to “read” into the claims unclaimed features disclosed in the description. If the applicant relies on an unclaimed feature to overcome an objection and the ED finds the argument persuasive, the unclaimed feature becomes “essential” and the ED must require the applicant to enter the unclaimed feature as a | Jan 25 18:15 |
| schestowitz[TR] | limiting feature into the claim. This implements the principle of the primacy of the claims. The general rule of claim interpretation of the case law referring to the broadest sensible meaning thus relies on the wording of the claims and must not take into account the description.<br /><br />In contrast, the interpretation under Article 69 by a court may depart from the literal wording of the claims, whether equivalents are consider | Jan 25 18:15 |
| schestowitz[TR] | ed or not, and takes into account the description. In short, the rule of claim interpretation is heavily context-dependent.<br /><br />The general rule of interpretation during examination may have an exception though, when the description provides a dictionary for the terms of the claims. As stated in CLB II.A.6.3.3,: « In several decisions the boards have stated that terms used in patent monopoly documents should be given their n | Jan 25 18:15 |
| schestowitz[TR] | ormal meaning in the relevant art, unless the description gives them a special meaning (see e.g. T 1321/04, T 1089/11, T 25/15, T 1844/15). According to the established case law, the patent monopoly document may be its own dictionary (see e.g. T 311/93, T 523/00, T 1192/02, T 61/03, T 1321/04, T 1388/09, T 2480/11, T 1817/14). »<br /><br />This is precisely the case for the patent monopoly in suit in T 439/22, EP3076804, in which | Jan 25 18:15 |
| schestowitz[TR] | the description contains a broad definition for the « gathered sheet », and the question is whether the interpretation should take into account the definition of the description or the wording of the claim.<br /><br />It is very striking that the Board’s suggestion for a referral to the EBA makes no mention whatsoever of the settled case law defining the general rule of interpretation. What the Board does is to cherry pick the d | Jan 25 18:15 |
| schestowitz[TR] | ebate in the case at hand around the applicability of the « description as a dictionary » exception, and extrapolate from this debate a general conclusion that there is a divide between BOAs about the use of the description in the interpretation of claims, citing just a couple of decisions, so as to raise the issue of the application of Art 69 to the examination of applications.<br /><br />But there is no more divide between the B | Jan 25 18:15 |
| schestowitz[TR] | OAs about the « description as a dictionary » exception, as clear from the quote of CBL II.A.6.3.3 above, than about the general rule. Both the general rule and the exception are settled case law. The only question is the applicability of this exception, which can only be assessed on a case-by-case basis.<br /><br />Absent a divide between the BOAs as to the general rule of interpretation during examination and as to the « descri | Jan 25 18:15 |
| schestowitz[TR] | ption as a dictionary » exception, there is absolutely no justification for a referral to the EBA. My guess is that the Board’s suggestion is an attempt to create a diversion to block the referral on the adaptation of description suggested in T 56/21." | Jan 25 18:15 |
| schestowitz[TR] | "Yes indeed, Pudding, but isn't the point that any one patent monopoly application must be directed to just one invention and that the claim-like clauses are directed to an invention that is not the same one as is defined in claim 1 intended for grant? Isn't that the reason why the claim-likes have to go?" | Jan 25 18:15 |
| *psydroid2 has quit (connection closed) | Jan 25 22:02 | |
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.