●● IRC: #techbytes @ Techrights IRC Network: Friday, April 25, 2025 ●● ● Apr 25 [00:37] *GNUmoon2 has quit (connection closed) [00:37] *GNUmoon2 (~GNUmoon@tk3vtmwmepfek.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Apr 25 [03:00] *x-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) ● Apr 25 [04:06] *x-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@h5zkbfemmwig6.irc) has joined #techbytes [04:21] schestowitz[TR2] http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2025/04/beware-of-boilerplate-practical-lessons.html?showComment=1745395055019#c8779184462214592954 [04:21] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Beware of boilerplate: Practical lessons for patent drafting from G1/24 (Claim interpretation) - The IPKat [04:22] schestowitz[TR2] "You say that the 'description merely allows to interpret the claims when it comes to infringement' and as a consequence ' the major part of the game is played in the claims and not the description.' It is not clear to me where this notion that the description should only be used to interpret the claims for the purposes of infringement and not for examination comes from.

For a start off, Article 69 states that the sc [04:22] schestowitz[TR2] ope of protection shall be determined by the claims and that the description and drawings shall be used to interpret the claims, while Article 84 states that 'The claims shall define the matter for which protection is sought.' Given that both Article 69 and Article 84 are concerned with the protection provided by the European patent/application, it seems odd that the way in which the claims are interpreted for the purposes of eac [04:22] schestowitz[TR2] h should different.

Someone above brought up the issue of post-grant validation where only a translation of the claims is required for some countries and referred to Rule 71(3) remaining unchanged. I have seen the EPO used this translations requirement as a basis for the proposition the claims should be fully comprehensible without reference to the description and drawings. Since Article 65 has always provided for pos [04:22] schestowitz[TR2] t grant translation of the patent monopoly into a national language the EPC, a solution that undermines that proposition, it strikes me as bogus to argue that just because some countries have chosen to omit the requirement for a translation of the description, 'unchanged' Rule 71(3) now provides the basis for arguing that the description and drawings should not be available to interpret the claims, even more so given that the most [04:22] schestowitz[TR2] likely most grant proceedings outside of the EPO are infringement proceedings and Article 69 tells us the description and drawings shall be used to interpret the claims. " [04:34] *fantom has quit (Ping timeout: 120 seconds) [04:55] *fantom (~fantom@freenode-drv.aab.2jssns.IP) has joined #techbytes ● Apr 25 [05:00] *x-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) [05:21] schestowitz[TR2] http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2025/04/beware-of-boilerplate-practical-lessons.html?showComment=1745395732071#c7922110846158747877 [05:21] schestowitz[TR2] "" [05:21] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Beware of boilerplate: Practical lessons for patent drafting from G1/24 (Claim interpretation) - The IPKat [05:21] schestowitz[TR2] "Agree with Francis Hagel on the use of the term 'boilerplate'. It seems to me that it is not appropriate to a definition crafted for a particular document, most likely with a sensible purpose. Boilerplate seems to me more apt to describe the paragraphs of description so often found in US originating applications telling us that singular should be taken as covering plural and vice versa, what 'and', 'or' and 'processor' mean and [05:21] schestowitz[TR2] all that sort of stuff.

I also agree with the comment about a patent monopoly being a legal document and the use of definitions to help in understanding the document for its particular purpose. In some cases it can be difficult to come up with a generic term for particular features and dumping a list of options the applicant wishes to cover into the claims is not necessarily conducive to clarity. However, as Mr Hage [05:21] schestowitz[TR2] l says, when you have such a definition in the description, you should be stuck with it and required to amend the claim if it results in an interpretation of the claim that results in a lack of novelty/obviousness." [05:21] schestowitz[TR2] http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2025/04/beware-of-boilerplate-practical-lessons.html?showComment=1745392052128#c2621296642070085985 [05:21] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Beware of boilerplate: Practical lessons for patent drafting from G1/24 (Claim interpretation) - The IPKat [05:21] schestowitz[TR2] ">'Allowing such a discrepancy is completely ignoring the primacy of the claims. What good is it to have claims, if the applicant/proprietor is allowed to alter the meaning given by the skilled person to a claimed feature by giving it a different meaning in the description?'

The problem with this approach is that it ignores Article 69 EPC, which specifically tells us that the description and claims should be used to inte [05:21] schestowitz[TR2] rpret the claims. We have had an EPO created problem because the EPO took it upon itself to decide this only applies to scope of protection and not clarity. However, as I have pointed out to numerous examiners over the years and is mentioned in the article above, at least in the mechanical field, the vast majority of claims cannot be understood without reading the description and claims.

Somewhat ironically, one of t [05:21] schestowitz[TR2] he few claims I can recall reading that was perfectly comprehensible without first referring to the description and drawings and whose meaning was not affected by the content of the description and drawings, was rejected for lacking clarity.

Anyway, returning to the original point, this is an EPO manufactured problem. Quite why it has concluded that the legislator intended that we should use the description and drawin [05:21] schestowitz[TR2] gs to understand the claims for the purposes of patent monopoly infringement proceedings, yet for proceedings before the examining divisions we the claims must be comprehensible without reference to the description and drawings has never been explained. A further irony is that many claims that are clear (even if you have to check the description and drawings to get the proper meaning) become a convoluted mess following amendments [05:21] schestowitz[TR2] to put the claims into the two-part form and meet the bogus clarity and added subject-matter objections that so often arise during prosecution." ● Apr 25 [06:25] *lightbringer has quit (Ping timeout: 120 seconds) [06:27] *lightbringer (~mincer@freenode/user/lightbringer) has joined #techbytes [06:27] *jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [06:29] *jacobk (~quassel@syp65ggum2ibk.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Apr 25 [08:01] *x-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@h5zkbfemmwig6.irc) has joined #techbytes [08:20] schestowitz[TR2] "I think its the Department of state and/or DARPA through Microsoft. Possibly the CIA, but thats going to be impossible to trace" ● Apr 25 [10:02] *jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [10:04] *jacobk (~quassel@syp65ggum2ibk.irc) has joined #techbytes [10:15] schestowitz[TR2]
  • American Oversight Sues DOGE, Convicted Felon Officials for Violating Federal Records Act

    The lawsuit targets MElon, Marco Rubio, and others for DOGEs use of Signal and Surveillance Giant Google Docs to circumvent federal records laws.

    • [10:15] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-americanoversight.org | American Oversight Sues DOGE, Trump Officials for Violating Federal Records Act - American Oversight [10:53] schestowitz[TR2] https://www.thelayoff.com/t/1jsne585r [10:53] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes- ( status 403 @ https://www.thelayoff.com/t/1jsne585r ) [10:53] schestowitz[TR2] " [10:53] schestowitz[TR2] it's called "winning" but in a negative direction [10:53] schestowitz[TR2] " ● Apr 25 [13:22] *x-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) [13:27] schestowitz[TR2] https://www.thelayoff.com/t/1jsntck5q [13:27] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes- ( status 403 @ https://www.thelayoff.com/t/1jsntck5q ) [13:27] schestowitz[TR2] " [13:27] schestowitz[TR2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HashiCorp [13:27] schestowitz[TR2] "The deal closed on February 27, 2025 for $6.4 billion after receiving the necessary regulatory approvals." [13:27] schestowitz[TR2] " [13:27] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-en.wikipedia.org | HashiCorp - Wikipedia ● Apr 25 [15:04] schestowitz[TR2]
  • [15:04] schestowitz[TR2]
    Immich 1.132 Brings Smoother Syncing, Mobile UI Enhancements
    [15:04] schestowitz[TR2]
    [15:04] schestowitz[TR2]

    Immich, an open-source, self-hosted photo and video backup solution often pitched as a privacy-respecting alternative to Google Photos, has just released version 1.132.

    [15:04] schestowitz[TR2]

    At the server layer, TypeORM is out, and a custom schema-plus-migration engine built on Kysely, a TypeScript SQL query builder, is in. The shift promises leaner queries and more predictable migrations for administrators running Immich in Docker or Kubernetes.

    [15:04] schestowitz[TR2]
    [15:04] schestowitz[TR2]
    • [15:04] schestowitz[TR2] [15:04] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-linuxiac.com | Immich 1.132 Brings Smoother Syncing, Mobile UI Enhancements [15:13] schestowitz[TR2]
  • [15:13] schestowitz[TR2]
    COSMIC Alpha 7: Never Been Beta
    [15:13] schestowitz[TR2]
    [15:13] schestowitz[TR2]

    ISO excited for the latest COSMIC alpha release! Weve been busy clearing up scores of bugs while soldering together the features that we absolutely must include before the Big Betahemoth descends upon the Earth. Let COSMIC Alpha 7 commence!

    [15:13] schestowitz[TR2]
    [15:13] schestowitz[TR2]
    • [15:13] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-blog.system76.com | COSMIC Alpha 7: Never Been Beta - System76 Blog [15:53] *x-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@h5zkbfemmwig6.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Apr 25 [16:22] *x-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) ● Apr 25 [18:00] *psydroid3 (~psydroid@8p6k6zizq5nqc.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Apr 25 [19:37] *jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [19:40] *jacobk (~quassel@syp65ggum2ibk.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Apr 25 [20:48] *jacobk has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [20:51] *jacobk (~quassel@syp65ggum2ibk.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Apr 25 [22:05] *psydroid3 has quit (Quit: KVIrc 5.2.6 Quasar http://www.kvirc.net/)