=> back to Techrights (Main Index)
00:07 *GNUmoon2 has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)
00:08 *GNUmoon2 (~GNUmoon@r9irv7kyrpv3c.irc) has joined #techbytes
00:09 *MinceR gives voice to GNUmoon2
00:44 *DaemonFC has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)
00:46 *DaemonFC (~daemonfc@ws9r4ubuc37b6.irc) has joined #techbytes
00:47 *MinceR gives voice to DaemonFC
01:19 *rianne__ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)
01:19 *asusbox has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)
02:08 geert; schestowitz i havent yet got too much experience with it, with openrc, currently
02:08 geert; although its on the agenda pretty soonish i suspect
02:10 schestowitz; it is simple
02:11 schestowitz; and predictable
02:11 schestowitz; like, you add a job to it
02:11 schestowitz; and it's there in a simple file
02:11 schestowitz; you back up the file
02:11 schestowitz; K.I.S.S.
02:48 *geert has quit (connection closed)
02:50 *GNUmoon2 has quit (connection closed)
02:50 *GNUmoon2 (~GNUmoon@i9qtak2d2eia6.irc) has joined #techbytes
02:53 *MinceR gives voice to GNUmoon2
04:31 *asusbox (~rianne@3stvfjh5iuw88.irc) has joined #techbytes
04:31 *rianne__ (~rianne@3stvfjh5iuw88.irc) has joined #techbytes
04:53 *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytes
06:32 *DaemonFC has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
06:46 *DaemonFC (~daemonfc@gfb5nj2ry585q.irc) has joined #techbytes
08:51 *rianne__ has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)
08:51 *asusbox has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)
08:53 *DaemonFC has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
08:54 *DaemonFC (~daemonfc@tyh9uypqaqvwk.irc) has joined #techbytes
10:12 *Fucking-Riannes-Ass (~Fucking-Riannes-Ass@5j2hsrvteqpeu.irc) has joined #techbytes
10:15 *Fucking-Riannes-Ass has quit (Quit: leaving)
11:44 *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytes
13:41 *MinceR gives voice to DaemonFC psydruid
18:12 schestowitz; "Sorry, I did not mean to imply that the output of an "AI" is automatically ( or ever) covered by a copyright. I just wanted to say, that the camera certainly does not own any right to the picture (nor an ape using a camera, compare the PETA case...)" http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/08/bad-cases-make-bad-law-has-dabus-ai.html?showComment=1692452389860#c6540326755260469541
18:12 -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Bad cases make bad law: Has DABUS "the AI inventor" actually invented anything? - The IPKat
18:12 schestowitz; "On Friday, Judge Beryl Howell issued an opinion in Dr. Stephen Thalers challenge against the U.S. Copyright Office (USCO) over the denial of his application for a work generated entirely using generative artificial intelligence (AI) technology. The opinion supports the USCOs refusal to register a work in which the claimant disclosed in the application that the image was the result of an AI system, called The Creativity Machine. T
18:12 schestowitz; he case is Stephen Thaler v. Shira Perlmutter and The United States Copyright Office (1:22-cv-01564) (June 2, 2022)."
18:12 schestowitz; https://ipwatchdog.com/2023/08/19/copyright-registration-works-created-by-generative-ai/id=165444/
=> ↺ https://ipwatchdog.com/2023/08/19/copyright-registration-works-created-by-generative-ai/id=165444/
18:12 -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipwatchdog.com | Court Says No Copyright Registration for Works Created by Generative AI
20:16 schestowitz; http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/08/adding-matter-by-amending-description.html?showComment=1692459469619#c1265837368054531674
20:16 schestowitz; ">Mr Thomas, you have correctly identified the fact that the EPO's approach to interpreting the claims has implications for other provisions that the EPO examines, such as novelty and inventive step. But why should that fact make any difference to the validity (or otherwise) of my observations?You also ask how I can speak of a "non-EPC" approach to interpreting the claims. I would answer that with questions of my o
20:16 schestowitz; wn: Is there any provision of the EPC other than Art 69 that sets out how the claims should be interpreted? And do we not agree that the EPO does not follow (all of) Art 69 when interpreting the claims?To be clear, I do not "reproach" the EPO for the manner in which they choose to interpret the claims of patents and patent applications. I merely observe that how they approach that task is not in accor
20:16 schestowitz; dance with Art 69 EPC (and its Protocol). Indeed, as you will see from one of my earlier comments, I believe that it would be unreasonable to expect EPO examiners to conduct the kind of thorough, detailed analysis that is demanded by Art 69 EPC.A pragmatic approach to claim interpretation is clearly needed to prevent examination of patent applications turning into a long, drawn out and eye-wateringly expensive process. Howev
20:16 schestowitz; er, it is important to remember that the results of such a pragmatic approach will only represent a rough approximation of the true (ie Art 69 EPC) result. Sometimes the rough approximation will be surprisingly close to the true result. Other times not so much ... as evidenced by the outcome of some opposition proceedings.Relying upon a rough approximation may not be ideal when assessing novelty and inventive step. H
20:16 schestowitz; owever, doing so is unlikely to result in amendments to the claims that add subject matter. This is because such amendments will need to be based squarely upon the disclosure of the application as filed.By way of contrast, relying upon a rough approximation (of the meaning of the claims) is highly likely to lead to added matter problems if the description is strictly adapted to the roughly approximate
20:16 schestowitz; meaning of the claims. For example, matter could be added (as per Ensygnia v Shell) if reliance upon the rough approximation leads to the mislabelling of an embodiment as "not the invention according to the claims".The problem here is the use of a roughly approximate meaning of the claims as a guide for amendments to the description. It is really self-evident that a practice that insists upon strict<
20:16 schestowitz; /b> conformity with such a rough approximation is, at least on occasion, going to produce some terrible results."
20:16 -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Adding matter by amending the description to exclude embodiments (Ensygnia v Shell [2023] EWHC 1495 (Pat)) - The IPKat
20:16 schestowitz; http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/08/adding-matter-by-amending-description.html?showComment=1692450528679#c428209270884600816
20:16 schestowitz; "It could indeed be, Daniel, that Ensygnia is of little help but can that also be said of the pemetrexed case, limited during prosecution in the EPO to the sodium salt of pemetrexed because i) that was the only worked example, and ii) in the application as filed there was no claim at the "pemetrexed" level of generalisation. Instead, the inventive concept was expressed at a level of generalisation wider than just pemetrexed. H
20:16 schestowitz; ad the drafter of the patent included a claim at the "pemetrexed salt" intermediate level of generalisation there would likely have been no litigation and no controversy. The potassium salt would have been an infringement, no doubt, no controversy.But there was litigation, as to whether the potassium salt infringed the sodium salt claim under any pertaining Doctrine of Equivalents. The judges had to decide between
20:16 schestowitz; legal certainty and a scope of protection that gave "fair" protection to the patentee, having regard to the nature of the inventive concept given to the public through the 18 month WO A publication..We can contemplate what would have happened if the current strict Art 84 conformity regime had been in effect, in the case of the pemetrexed patent application. A description of the sodium embodiment and everything els
20:16 schestowitz; e expunged from the description or labelled "not the invention". Consequence: inventive concept re-defined as the sodium salt, nothing more. Little or no chance then for the patent owner successfully to assert the patent successfully against the potassium variant. And all for want of a dependent claim at the key intermediate level of generalisation.Not sure whether asking the EBA whether the EPO should, prior to gr
20:16 schestowitz; ant, acknowledge the existence of Art 69 EPC will sweep away at a stroke the entire Art 84 "conformity" controversy. Not even sure there is any point in asking the EBA the question. The only lesson we can take from all this debate is that drafters need to be more thoughtful, prosecuters need to be ultra-careful and that (some) EPO Examiners need to be mindful of the statutory obligation to i) grant patents and ii)
20:16 schestowitz; allow Applicants the chance to acquire a scope of protection that is "fair" and commensurate with what they have disclosed to the public as their valuable, new, useful and inventive contribution to the progress of technology. Guidelines authors, please note!"
20:16 -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Adding matter by amending the description to exclude embodiments (Ensygnia v Shell [2023] EWHC 1495 (Pat)) - The IPKat
20:54 schestowitz; URGENT: An IMPOSTER account posting ILLEGAL and EXTREMIST stuff
20:54 schestowitz; This account is an IMPOSTER:
20:54 schestowitz; https://social.linux.pizza/@schestowitz
=> ↺ https://social.linux.pizza/@schestowitz
20:54 schestowitz; Please remove ASAP.
20:54 schestowitz; Regards,
20:54 -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-Dr. Roy Schestowitz () (@schestowitz@social.linux.pizza) - Linux.Pizza
21:03 *Disconnected (Connection reset by peer).
21:03 *Now talking on #techbytes
21:03 *Topic for #techbytes is: Welcome to the official channel of the TechBytes Audiocast
21:03 *Topic for #techbytes set by schestowitz!~roy@haii6za73zabc.irc at Tue Jun 1 20:21:34 2021
21:03 *libertybox (~schestowitz_log@3stvfjh5iuw88.irc) has joined #techbytes
21:04 *MinceR gives voice to schestowitz-TR2 liberty_box_ libertybox__
21:04 *MinceR gives voice to viera DaemonFC XFaCE
21:04 *MinceR gives voice to liberty_box tool Techrights-sec
21:04 *MinceR gives voice to rianne_ psydruid GNUmoon2
21:04 *MinceR gives voice to Noisytoot TechBytesBot techrights[sec]_
21:05 *MinceR gives voice to libertybox_ Techrights-sec2 libertybox
21:05 *MinceR gives voice to schestowitz[TR2]
21:06 *You are now known as schestowitz
23:01 schestowitz; "@ Proof of the pudding,Your considerations are interesting and deserve to be commented. In my eyes, one problem has to be cleared first: it has to be decided first whether Art 69 is at all applicable in proceedings before the EPO or only by way of exception, when features in a claim are unclear or when assessing whether the scope of protection has been extended in opposition. The present case law of the boards i
23:01 schestowitz; s diverging on this matter. Without this clarification any further discussion, also on the adaptation of the description does not appears very effective. You reproach the EPO that it does not properly (i.e. using Art 69 EPC) determine the meaning of the wording of the claims. As said it has to be decided first whether and how Art 69 is to be applied in procedures before the EPO. Examiners at the EPO are not
23:01 schestowitz; stupid and it can be considered that they have the knowledge of the person skilled in the art in their technical area. It will thus allow them to discriminate between a cat and a dog, and even between the different races of cats and dogs. If there is a claim to a Great Dane and the description says that under a Great Dane one can also understand a Chihuahua, we have a problem. Or do we not? You claim that there is a bigger
23:01 schestowitz; risk with option 2, but I have not yet seen one case like this. You infer this risk from Ensygnia v Shell, but in this case, the applicant tried, by amending the description in view of a potential infringement, to give a broader meaning to a feature contained in a claim. Whether the applicant had previously conceded in the description what has to be understood as being the claimed invention could not have played a determinin
23:01 schestowitz; g role. It was more convenient for the judge to start with the own acknowledgment of the proprietor, but even without this acknowledgment, I doubt that the decision of the judge would have been different. I am therefore of the opinion that Ensygnia v Shell does not help very much either way. You further claim that the EPO never determines the true meaning of the wording of the claims. I beg to disagree. How could a deciding
23:01 schestowitz; body of the EPO decide on Novelty, Inventive Step as well as added-matter or sufficiency without giving the features in a claim their ordinary meaning? I certainly do not share your view that, it is improper for the EPO to remedy to alleged contradictions / inconsistencies (between the claims and the description), in that they derive from a non-EPC interpretation of the claims? What allows you to speak about a non-EPC interpretati
23:01 schestowitz; on of the claims? "
23:01 schestowitz; http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/08/adding-matter-by-amending-description.html?showComment=1692439978466#c2634286829062914121
23:02 -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Adding matter by amending the description to exclude embodiments (Ensygnia v Shell [2023] EWHC 1495 (Pat)) - The IPKat
23:06 *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytes
23:09 *Cornhole-Roy (~Cornhole-Roy@wes48ghdwvgn2.irc) has joined #techbytes
23:09 *Cornhole-Roy has quit (Killed (MinceR (no)))
23:10 *Roy-roofied-chicks (~Roy-roofied-chicks@ag8reaw4f8w8n.irc) has joined #techbytes
23:14 *Roy-roofied-chicks has quit (Killed (MinceR (get a job, matt)))
=> back to Techrights (Main Index) This content has been proxied by September (ba2dc).Proxy Information
text/gemini;lang=en-GB