=> back to Techrights (Main Index)
00:04 *rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)
00:04 *asusbox has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)
01:51 *Despatche (~desp@njtakmk96ye48.irc) has joined #techbytes
02:09 schestowitz; http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/07/the-risk-of-pre-grant-description.html?showComment=1689612654099#c4512792886034182613
02:09 -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | The risk of pre-grant description amendments (T 450/20) - The IPKat
02:09 schestowitz; "There is another point to add. That is, as they were well aware of the prior art found by the Board to anticipate Claim 1 as granted, the ED for the patent discussed in T450/20 clearly did not go through the process of interpreting that claim in accordance with the amended description.So is this how it is going to work from now on? An ED interprets a claim based upon an original description, and then, if that
02:09 schestowitz; claim is amended, insists upon the filing of an amended description. The ED then does not revisit the issue of claim interpretation ... instead leaving it to an OD, Board of Appeal or court to decide whether the amendments to the description change the meaning of the claim (relative to the interpretation afforded by the ED prior to amendment of the description).This has the feeling of the EPO setting num
02:09 schestowitz; erous, potentially unavoidable bear traps for applicants. Whether they mean to do this is irrelevant. This is because the only thing that will matter to applicants is what the EPO's practice actually achieves in practical terms."
02:10 schestowitz; "The position about adaptation of the description taken by some representatives, actually on both sides of The Channel, is well known. I do not wish to restart this decision. For me the topic is exhausted. My position is known.In my opinion, the fundamental question of law which should be decided by the EBA is whether recourse to the description under Art 69(1) and Art 1 of the Protocol has to be systematic or not, or only w
02:10 schestowitz; hen dealing with Art 123(3) or in case of lack of clarity of the claims. In defending its position against the referral, the board referred to T 1473/19. In this respect it can be said that the board was at the same time judge and party.In a different blog, I expressed the view that the present board was going a trifle too far when claiming that permanently attached can also mean releasable. That in real life a p
02:10 schestowitz; hysical connection can always be detached if an appropriate external force is applied is, in the present context, beside the point. A claim should be read with a will to understand and not misunderstand it. Here the interpretation by the board is really far fetched. Permanently attached means not releasable under normal conditions of use. The deletion of the various possibilities of use, and the limitation to
02:10 schestowitz; the one of the two originally disclosed alternatives, i.e. to "permanently attached" could probably have helped to save the patent, without introducing any added matter."
02:10 schestowitz; "Comment part 2 of 2In essence, the main problem here is that using the amended description and drawings to interpret the claims clashes with the basis upon which added matter is assessed, namely the original description and drawings (and claims).There is also the problem that the "description and drawings" can change during opposition proceedings, if the patent is upheld in amended form by the
02:10 schestowitz; OD. This poses the following questions.A) Which "description and drawings" should a Board of Appeal use to interpret the claims: those of the patent as originally granted or those of the patent in the form upheld by the OD?B) Will the answer to question A depend upon whether the patentee has appealed and is pursuing the claims as originally granted (or at least broader claims than those upheld by the OD
02:10 schestowitz; )?C) Will the "description and drawings" used to interpret the claims change if the Board only upholds narrower claims, and then insists upon the description being brought into line with those narrowed claims?According to the logic of the Board in T450/20, the answer to question C must be "yes". Indeed, if the patent will be republished in amended form, should not the description and drawings
02:10 schestowitz; of the amended patent be used to interpret the claims from thereon?Of course, all of these problems would go away if the (unchanging) description and drawings of the application as originally filed were instead used to interpret the claims at all times. This would make a great deal of sense and be consistent with the EPO's practice on added matter. However, I cannot see a Board of Appeal agreeing with this view
02:10 schestowitz; any time soon, not least because it would highlight the absurdity of the EPO insisting upon "strict" adaptation of the description to amended claims.'
02:10 schestowitz; "Comment part 1 of 2To me, it seems that there is a problem with the Board's interpretation of Art 69(1).The first sentence of Art 69(1) refers to both "a European patent" and "a European patent application". The second sentence of Art 69(1) merely refers to "the description and drawings" and does not draw a distinction between:- the description and
02:10 schestowitz; drawings of "a European patent"; and- the description and drawings of "a European patent application".It is therefore unclear from the wording of Art 69(1) which description and drawings should be used to interpret which claims.However, using anything other than the description and drawings the European patent application as originally filed can cause serious proble
02:10 schestowitz; ms. This is because relying upon an amended description to interpret the claims makes the interpretation of even original claim language a moving target.To illustrate, consider the hypothetical situation where:- original Claim 1 of a patent application referred to a stent comprising a "permanently attached or releasable" wire; and - original Claim 2 of that patent application referred solely to a
02:10 schestowitz; stent comprising a "permanently attached" wire.How would Claim 2 of the patent application be interpreted?As "permanently attached" is an unclear term, it would presumably be interpreted in the light of the description and drawings of the application as originally filed.But what happens if original Claim 1 is amended by incorporating the limitation of original Claim 2, and
02:10 schestowitz; the description and drawings are amended to bring them into line with the amended claims? Should the claims then be interpreted in the light of the amended description and drawings?In essence, the Board in T450/20 answered "yes" to this question. By doing so, they arrived at an interpretation of "permanently attached" that at least partially overlaps with the "releasable" alternative tha
02:10 schestowitz; t was deleted from the claims. This then begs the following questions.1) Would the Board have afforded the same meaning to "permanently attached" if they had instead interpreted the claims in the light of the description and drawings of the application as originally filed?2) If the answer to question 1 is "no", does Claim 1 as amended (and as interpreted in the light of the am
02:10 schestowitz; ended description and drawings) cover more subject matter than original Claim 2?3) If the answer to question 2 is "yes", does Claim 1 as amended (and/or the amendments to the description) add subject matter relative to the content of the application as originally filed?"
03:36 *Despatche has quit (connection closed)
05:03 *u-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
05:03 *asusbox (~rianne@3stvfjh5iuw88.irc) has joined #techbytes
05:03 *rianne_ (~rianne@3stvfjh5iuw88.irc) has joined #techbytes
05:08 *u-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@h9w2ackdz5nh2.irc) has joined #techbytes
05:15 *rianne_ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)
05:16 *asusbox has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)
06:26 *parsifal (~parsifal@aahfbjmj4hann.irc) has joined #techbytes
06:37 *Moocher5254 has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)
06:45 *Moocher5254 (~quassel@qy2y59ha8m3v6.irc) has joined #techbytes
10:22 *psydroid2 (~psydroid@u8ftxtfux23wk.irc) has joined #techbytes
12:24 schestowitz; x https://fedscoop.com/microsoft-appoints-candice-ling-as-president-of-federal-business-unit/
=> ↺ https://fedscoop.com/microsoft-appoints-candice-ling-as-president-of-federal-business-unit/
12:24 schestowitz; x https://neweasterneurope.eu/2023/07/18/saudi-arabias-balancing-act-navigating-geopolitical-waters-amidst-the-russo-ukrainian-war/
12:24 -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-Microsoft appoints Candice Ling as president of federal business unit | FedScoop
12:24 -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-neweasterneurope.eu | Saudi Arabia's balancing act: Navigating geopolitical waters amidst the Russo-Ukrainian War - New Eastern Europe
16:11 *GNUmoon2 has quit (connection closed)
16:11 *GNUmoon2 (~GNUmoon@ag8reaw4f8w8n.irc) has joined #techbytes
16:25 schestowitz; > So many articles on GLA? Sounds like you have long-standing issues with them, yes?
16:25 schestowitz; >
16:25 schestowitz; > Are you having any luck raising awareness?
16:25 schestowitz; Yes, I first became aware of their breach thanks to your site. I think it merits a lot more coverage. They're a repeat offender. I worked on their systems for 9 years. My wife did too.
16:40 *u-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
16:41 *u-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@h9w2ackdz5nh2.irc) has joined #techbytes
17:28 schestowitz; https://www.thelayoff.com/t/1nFLYrS1
=> ↺ https://www.thelayoff.com/t/1nFLYrS1
17:28 -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.thelayoff.com | I was warned but did not listen. - post regarding Microsoft Corp. layoffs
17:28 schestowitz; "
17:28 schestowitz; Exactly. Its nothing personal. You are a commodity, a piece of property, an asset to be traded or discarded at will. If letting you go is deemed beneficial for the company, then by all means you gotta go. Realizing this, it always baffles me when employees have this absolute blind loyalty to a company. If you ever want to silence a room, just make the statement Im as loyal to the company as the company is to me. You may be surp
17:28 schestowitz; rised at to what response you get.
17:28 schestowitz; You may get Great then, Im glad to hear that. The company takes care of you, therefore I know you are taking care of the company
17:28 schestowitz; OR you may hear
17:28 schestowitz; Well now, its been a tough year for us all so etc.
17:28 schestowitz; 5 hours ago by Anonymous
17:28 schestowitz; | 1 reaction (+1/-0)
17:28 schestowitz; Post ID: @1dpu+1nFLYrS1
17:28 schestowitz; +1
17:28 schestowitz; Satya is a former H1B; he works for Wall Street investors and for his own compensation; his goal is to replace employees like OP with cheaper, younger hungriier H1Bs and to offshore as much as possible to lower cost areas such as India.
17:28 schestowitz; A dollar saved is a dollar made.
17:28 schestowitz; Employees like OP can be replaced like lightbulbs ; this is just business
17:28 schestowitz; "
17:29 schestowitz; "
17:29 schestowitz; Well, some of the Microsoft layoffs (yes, they're still ongoing) are insane. veterans with decades of experience out the door and CVPs and other senior Microsoft folk in their mentions on LinkedIn about as shocked as the people laid off. it makes no sense to me at all
17:29 schestowitz; "
17:33 schestowitz; "https://www.thelayoff.com/t/1nFhLKU0#replies
=> ↺ https://www.thelayoff.com/t/1nFhLKU0#replies
17:33 schestowitz; Paid version
17:33 schestowitz; "
17:33 -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.thelayoff.com | Microsoft's latest layoffs hit more than 1,000 employees and bring big changes to sales and customer service teams, insiders say - post regarding Microsoft Corp. layoffs
18:42 *parsifal has quit (Quit: Leaving)
18:44 *psydroid2 has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)
19:15 *psydroid2 (~psydroid@u8ftxtfux23wk.irc) has joined #techbytes
20:56 *psydroid2 has quit (connection closed)
21:53 *asusbox (~rianne@3stvfjh5iuw88.irc) has joined #techbytes
21:53 *rianne_ (~rianne@3stvfjh5iuw88.irc) has joined #techbytes
=> back to Techrights (Main Index) This content has been proxied by September (ba2dc).Proxy Information
text/gemini;lang=en-GB