(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.
| *Noisytoot has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Apr 02 01:10 | |
| *Noisytoot (~noisytoot@tkbibjhmbkvb8.irc) has joined #techbytes | Apr 02 01:11 | |
| schestowitz[TR] | I do agree with you that the pharma ...</a></h5><blockquote>Dear Santa, <br /><br />I do agree with you that the pharma filed has specific constraints/peculiarities. <br /><br />You might indeed be able to cover billions of compounds with a product claim if you show (for example) 11 of them have an activity in some sort of relevant assay, but this depends really on what you have originally disclosed. You need to have at least materi | Apr 02 03:40 |
|---|---|---|
| schestowitz[TR] | alised an essay or the like at the time of filing. Anything else would be purely speculative. It would simply be equivalent to reach through claims. <br /><br />In T 488/16 (Dasatinib 1), the application as filed disclosed 580 compounds falling within the scope of general formula, including dasatinib (example 455) with a subgroup. The Board held that there was no evidence on file showing that, at the date of filing, the skilled per | Apr 02 03:40 |
| schestowitz[TR] | son was in the possession of common general knowledge which, even in the absence of data, made it plausible that the compounds of the invention, in particular dasatinib, could be expected to show PTK inhibitory activity= no ab initio plausibility. Hence, post-published evidence in support of the claimed subject-matter was not admitted in the procedure. <br /><br />In T 950/13 (Dasatinib 2), the application as filed, was directed to | Apr 02 03:40 |
| schestowitz[TR] | the use of generically defined compounds in the treatment of specific types of cancer, including CML, based on the activity of said compounds to inhibit certain protein tyrosine kinases such as SRC, BRC-ABL and c-KIT associated with these types of cancer. Dasatinib was identified as a preferred compound. The application as filed did not contain experimental evidence for dasatinib's BRC-ABL kinase inhibitory activity. The Board was | Apr 02 03:40 |
| schestowitz[TR] | satisfied that the application disclosed at least a plausible technical concept, namely that dasatinib based on its functional equivalence to imatinib as a BRC-ABL kinase inhibitor is suitable in the treatment of CML. For the board, there were no reasons apparent as to why a skilled person would a priori regard this teaching as incredible or implausible= ab initio implausibility. Hence post-published evidence was thus admitted by t | Apr 02 03:40 |
| schestowitz[TR] | he board.<br /><br />Dasatinib is a good illustration of what can happen to one and the same compound.<br /><br />That the EBA has decided that post-published evidence cannot be dismissed merely because it is late is no surprise. <br /><br />Free evaluation of evidence is a necessity, especially when all other formalities have been respected. I am however not sure that the EBA has clarified the situation in matters of “no ab initi | Apr 02 03:40 |
| schestowitz[TR] | o plausibility” or “no ab initio implausibility” with the admittedly rather abstract considerations it provided in reply to the referral. <br /> | Apr 02 03:40 |
| schestowitz[TR] | Apr 02 03:40 | |
| schestowitz[TR] | Apr 02 03:40 | |
| schestowitz[TR] | Apr 02 03:40 | |
| schestowitz[TR] | By replying “it depen... ☞ http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/03/g-221-did-invention-as-originally.html?showComment=1680357036968#c2542341586471764249 | Apr 02 03:40 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <li><h5><a href="http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/03/g-221-did-invention-as-originally.html?showComment=1680357036968#c2542341586471764249">Dear Proof of the pudding, | Apr 02 03:40 |
| schestowitz[TR] | By replying “it depen...</a></h5><blockquote>Dear Proof of the pudding, <br /><br />By replying “it depends upon the facts of the case” you actually refuse to take position. This attitude does not bring matters forward. My position is clear: it cannot primarily depend on the facts of the case. <br /><br />A feature incorporated in an independent claim has by destination to be considered essential. I cannot follow your logic th | Apr 02 03:40 |
| schestowitz[TR] | at when in the description mentions D as optional, the description does not have to be adapted or that “it depends on the facts of the case”, once D ends up the independent claim in order to restore N or IS in view of the prior art. <br /><br />In the independent claim ABC, feature D, mentioned as optional in the description of the invention as devised by the inventor, can be considered as “inherently” incorporating feature | Apr 02 03:40 |
| schestowitz[TR] | D. There will thus not just be many cases where it is easy to conclude that the answer is "yes". The answer should be yes is all the cases. <br /><br />Following your argumentation the direct consequence is that D would not need to be added in the claim ABC in order to restore N or IS, should the claim ABC be interpreted as “inherently” incorporating feature D. This is going a trifle too far and boils down to hair spl | Apr 02 03:40 |
| schestowitz[TR] | itting. <br /><br />If one would follow you, it would mean that every claim has to be systematically interpreted under Art 69. I personally do not think this is necessary. It would have for consequence that all the clear cut line of case law under the heading “directly and unambiguously disclosed” could be thrown overboard. You might wish it as applicant/proprietor. I doubt you may wish it as third party. A detailed, not to say | Apr 02 03:40 |
| schestowitz[TR] | “clinical”, assessment of the claims and their scope on the basis of the description is for national courts to decide in the event of litigation. <br /><br />I cannot agree that the EPO does not properly determine the extent of protection conferred by the claims. In opposition, it is the duty of the OD or of a board to check that the scope of protection has not been extended when claims are amended. Ever heard of the inescapabl | Apr 02 03:40 |
| schestowitz[TR] | e trap or G 1/93?<br /><br />You appear to refuse adapting the description as inadvertent mistakes can be made when adapting the description or that in certain cases everything has to be very carefully weighed to see if something could not be “inherently” covered by the claim as filed. One the one hand, I would remind you that the responsibility for drafting the application/patent lies with the applicant/proprietor. On the other | Apr 02 03:40 |
| schestowitz[TR] | hand, the EPO has the role to keep every user of the system on a par and not to allow monopolies which are neither justified by the law nor by the facts. <br /><br />That, according to you, there is no evidence of a national court reaching the "wrong" decision due to an "improper" adaptation is as well not an acceptable reply. National courts have only a very relative influence on the case law of the boards and | Apr 02 03:40 |
| schestowitz[TR] | vice-versa. Every national court can adopt the DoE it thinks fit. <br /><br />You might be “mystified as to why it is so difficult to reach agreement upon the practical effects and implications of our respective interpretations”. I am not. I explained my line of thoughts many times, but it does not seem to help. <br /><br />Basing your refusal of adapting the description on rather exceptional circumstances, does neither render | Apr 02 03:40 |
| schestowitz[TR] | your plea convincing nor compelling. <br /><br />Last but not least, it is time to stop exchanging on the adaptation of the description. We are turning in circles. As far as I am concerned the topic is exhausted. <br /><br /><br /><br /> | Apr 02 03:40 |
| schestowitz[TR] | Daniel, I write in support of Proof's argument... ☞ http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/03/g-221-did-invention-as-originally.html?showComment=1680349394496#c7707008383550101568 | Apr 02 03:40 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <li><h5><a href="http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/03/g-221-did-invention-as-originally.html?showComment=1680349394496#c7707008383550101568">Daniel, I write in support of Proof's argument...</a></h5><blockquote>Daniel, I write in support of Proof's arguments on the issue what is the scope of protection under Art 69 EPC and whether the requirements of Art 84 EPC can be satisfied without amendment to state in explicit terms that this | Apr 02 03:40 |
| schestowitz[TR] | or that device in Fig 6 of the drawings is NOT an embodiment of "the invention". The enquiry into the scope of protection is an enquiry into what is "equivalent" to that which is claimed. It is not so dimple as to assert baldly that "What is not claimed is disclaimed" yet you seem to think it is indeed that simple.<br /><br />For the court's enquiry into what is "equivalent", the full disclosu | Apr 02 03:40 |
| schestowitz[TR] | re of the application as filed is helpful. Formstein helps us to see that a prior art device cannot be equivalent to the claimed device. But that doesn't apply to devices that are NOT in the state of the art but are in the application as filed. <br /><br /> | Apr 02 03:40 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | G 2/21: Is the technical effect embodied by the invention as originally disclosed? - The IPKat | Apr 02 03:41 | |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | G 2/21: Is the technical effect embodied by the invention as originally disclosed? - The IPKat | Apr 02 03:42 | |
| schestowitz[TR] | <li> | Apr 02 09:21 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <h5><a href="https://buttondown.email/hillelwayne/archive/recycling-hotel-keycards/">Repurposing Hotel Keycards</a></h5> | Apr 02 09:21 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <blockquote> | Apr 02 09:21 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <p>The secret ingredient is Tasker, a scripting app for Android phones. Every script (“profile”) has a list of triggering conditions plus a set of task actions. Conditions can be based on things like buttons and schedules, The cool thing is that Tasker can use all phone’s sensors so you can do stuff like prevent a task if the phone is upside down. I used the condition “whenever the NFC | Apr 02 09:21 |
| schestowitz[TR] | reader sees this serial number.” That way I can have different hotel keycards do different things.</p> | Apr 02 09:21 |
| schestowitz[TR] | </blockquote> | Apr 02 09:21 |
| schestowitz[TR] | </li> | Apr 02 09:21 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-buttondown.email | Repurposing Hotel Keycards • Buttondown | Apr 02 09:21 | |
| schestowitz[TR] | <li> | Apr 02 09:21 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <h5><a href="https://www.omglinux.com/star64-is-a-risc-v-single-board-pc/">$70 RISC-V Computer from Pine64 Goes on Sale April 4</a></h5> | Apr 02 09:21 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <blockquote> | Apr 02 09:21 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <p>RISC-V (pronounced ‘risk-five’) is an open-source processor spec designed to be modular, extensible, and free to produce. Though it’s related to ARM (in the sense that both ARM and RISC-V are both RISC based) it is an entirely distinct, unique architecture set.</p> | Apr 02 09:21 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <p>Naturally, Linux already boasts burgeoning RISC-V support — and an affordable entry-level RISC-V device like the Star64 allows more enthusiasts and developers to get involved in furthering that work.</p> | Apr 02 09:21 |
| schestowitz[TR] | </blockquote> | Apr 02 09:21 |
| schestowitz[TR] | </li> | Apr 02 09:21 |
| schestowitz[TR] | Apr 02 09:21 | |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.omglinux.com | $70 RISC-V Computer from Pine64 Goes on Sale April 4 - OMG! Linux | Apr 02 09:21 | |
| schestowitz[TR] | <li> | Apr 02 09:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <h5><a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2023/03/29/tech/fda-medical-devices-secured-cyberattacks/index.html">FDA requires medical devices be secured against cyberattacks</a></h5> | Apr 02 09:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <blockquote> | Apr 02 09:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <p>Under FDA guidance issued this week, all new medical device applicants must now submit a plan on how to “monitor, identify, and address” cybersecurity issues, as well as create a process that provides “reasonable assurance” that the device in question is protected. Applicants will also need to make security updates and patches available on a regular schedule and in critical situatio | Apr 02 09:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | ns, and provide the FDA with “a software bill of materials,” including any open-source or other software their devices use.</p> | Apr 02 09:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <p>The new security requirements came into effect as part of the sweeping $1.7 trillion federal omnibus spending bill signed by President Joe Biden in December. As part of the new law, the FDA must also update its medical device cybersecurity guidance at least every two years.</p> | Apr 02 09:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | </blockquote> | Apr 02 09:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | </li> | Apr 02 09:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | Apr 02 09:29 | |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-edition.cnn.com | FDA requires medical devices be secured against cyberattacks | CNN Business | Apr 02 09:29 | |
| schestowitz[TR] | <li> | Apr 02 09:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <h5><a href="https://www.databreaches.net/todays-dont-say-ransomware-award-goes-to/">Today’s “Don’t Say ‘Ransomware’ Award” goes to….</a> [iophk: Windows TCO]</h5> | Apr 02 09:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <blockquote> | Apr 02 09:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <p>Yesterday, the Institute for Liver Health LLC, doing business as Arizona Clinical Trials and Arizona Liver Health (“ALH”) issued a press release about a “data security incident.” Their statement indicates that they had no idea they had been attacked until law enforcement contacted them on January 30 to tell them that their name had shown up “in a part of the internet used by crimi | Apr 02 09:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | nals as an entity whose information may have been taken by a criminal.”</p> | Apr 02 09:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <p>DataBreaches had noticed a listing on LockBit3.0’s site on January 29. Perhaps law enforcement also saw it and notified ALH. DataBreaches had contacted ALH about LockBit’s listing on January 29, but ALH did not reply. DataBreaches also contacted their systems administrator via LinkedIn at the time. He, too, did not respond.</p> | Apr 02 09:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | </blockquote> | Apr 02 09:29 |
| schestowitz[TR] | </li> | Apr 02 09:29 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes- ( status 403 @ https://www.databreaches.net/todays-dont-say-ransomware-award-goes-to/ ) | Apr 02 09:29 | |
| schestowitz[TR] | <li> | Apr 02 09:51 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <h5><a href="https://www.axios.com/2023/04/01/tiktok-warn-act-layoffs-tech-experts-true-false">Experts debunk viral TikTok videos about how companies reveal layoffs</a></h5> | Apr 02 09:51 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <blockquote> | Apr 02 09:51 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <p>Yes, but: Social media chatter around the WARN Act is creating some misunderstandings, says Sara Moore, a partner at the Gordon and Rees law office in San Francisco.</p> | Apr 02 09:51 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <p>The idea that "any layoff would necessarily trigger the WARN Act protections is not the case," said Moore, who deals with cases related to the law.</p> | Apr 02 09:51 |
| schestowitz[TR] | </blockquote> | Apr 02 09:51 |
| schestowitz[TR] | </li> | Apr 02 09:51 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.axios.com | Experts debunk viral TikTok videos about WARN Act and major layoffs | Apr 02 09:51 | |
| schestowitz[TR] | <li> | Apr 02 09:56 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <h5><a href="https://www.rfa.org/english/news/china/christians-03312023142900.html">Chinese Christians exiled in Thailand taken to court for overstaying visas</a></h5> | Apr 02 09:56 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <blockquote> | Apr 02 09:56 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <p>A Thai court on Friday began the trial of 28 Chinese Christians charged with overstaying their visa, and who were in the country seeking protection from the United Nations refugee agency claiming religious persecution back home, police said.</p> | Apr 02 09:56 |
| schestowitz[TR] | </blockquote> | Apr 02 09:56 |
| schestowitz[TR] | </li> | Apr 02 09:56 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.rfa.org | Chinese Christians exiled in Thailand taken to court for overstaying visas — Radio Free Asia | Apr 02 09:57 | |
| schestowitz[TR] | <li> | Apr 02 09:58 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <h5><a href="https://rubenerd.com/equinix-retiring-copper/">Equinix retiring copper</a></h5> | Apr 02 09:58 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <blockquote> | Apr 02 09:58 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <p>Effective 31 March 2024, all new Cross Connects globally will be Single-Mode Fiber (SMF). Copper (including POTS, UTP, COAX, Cat5, Cat6 media types) and Multi-Mode Fiber (MMF) will no longer be available as media types for new Cross Connects in any IBX data center.</p> | Apr 02 09:58 |
| schestowitz[TR] | </blockquote> | Apr 02 09:58 |
| schestowitz[TR] | </li> | Apr 02 09:58 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-Rubenerd: Equinix retiring copper | Apr 02 09:58 | |
| schestowitz[TR] | <li> | Apr 02 09:58 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <h5><a href="https://about.rte.ie/2023/03/31/rte-radio-1-to-cease-broadcasting-on-long-wave/">RTÉ Radio 1 To Cease Broadcasting On Long Wave</a></h5> | Apr 02 09:58 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <blockquote> | Apr 02 09:58 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <p>The phasing out and closure of the Long Wave service was one of the recommendations of the Future of Media Commission Report which was published by the Government in July 2022. This was part of a wider recommendation aimed at ensuring RTE could invest available resources in innovation and digital services. Further investment into the mast and transmitter, which is no longer fit for purpose and has | Apr 02 09:58 |
| schestowitz[TR] | a significant carbon emission footprint, would significantly impair RTE’s ability to meet the emissions reductions target required to contribute to the National Climate Action Plan.</p> | Apr 02 09:58 |
| schestowitz[TR] | <p>RTÉ’s decision to take the Long Wave service off air is based on three interrelated factors: [...]</p> | Apr 02 09:58 |
| schestowitz[TR] | </blockquote> | Apr 02 09:58 |
| schestowitz[TR] | </li> | Apr 02 09:58 |
| -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-about.rte.ie | RTÉ RADIO 1 TO CEASE BROADCASTING ON LONG WAVE – About RTÉ | Apr 02 09:58 | |
| schestowitz[TR] | "Much of this development is being bolstered by federal funding. On March 23, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration announced two new grants through the Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program, bringing its total to more than $1.75 billion awarded to 135 Tribal entities." | Apr 02 10:01 |
| *psydroid2 (~psydroid@u8ftxtfux23wk.irc) has joined #techbytes | Apr 02 11:22 | |
| *rianne_ has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) | Apr 02 19:18 | |
| *rianne__ has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) | Apr 02 19:18 | |
| *rianne__ (~rianne@rbnv8qskr8rgw.irc) has joined #techbytes | Apr 02 19:18 | |
| *rianne_ (~rianne@freenode-448.p91.7dgmmg.IP) has joined #techbytes | Apr 02 19:18 | |
| *psydroid2 has quit (connection closed) | Apr 02 23:13 | |
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.