Source: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2015/03/wednesday-whimsies-2.html
Timestamp: 2016-12-07 22:09:32
Document Index: 65654263

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art 52', 'Art 52', 'Art. 52', 'Art 54', 'Art 52', 'Art 52', 'Art 54']

CAT = computer assisted technology, and we're here to assist ...
Objective and Viewpoint Neutral
My own "whimsey:"Your directions as to "In the event that there has been no software malfunction and that your post has been rejected, if you want to appeal against this decision please contact either (i) Dr Danny Friedmann of the IP Dragon weblog (ipdragon@gmail.com) or (ii) Professor Dennis Crouch of the Patently-O weblog (dcrouch@patentlyo.com). Danny or Dennis will review your complaint, preserving the confidentiality of your identity and will let both you and us know whether your complaint is justified." are puzzling, as Patently-O has one of the worst reputations for objectively reviewing ad hominem attacks.If that's your model, I have to wonder what results you hope to achieve.Sign me: Objective and Viewpoint Neutral
Wednesday, 11 March 2015 at 12:59:00 GMT
Wednesday, 11 March 2015 at 15:07:00 GMT
I'll bite.Marcin, im Grossen und Ganzen (by and large) YES.Under the EPC, only a combination of technical features that solves an objective technical problem is fit for a patent. Loads of things can be new and not obvious, like some new and clever book plot or pattern grooved in the surface of a coffee mug to amuse the brain when idly tracking the groove with a fingertip. But the novelty and the cleverness in these things is not in a technical field so doesn't contribute to patentability in Europe.In the USA the statute lacks the exclusions of EPC Art 52, so people think it is not restricted to things "technical". But it is limited to the "useful arts" whatever they are. The Supreme Court has been careful not to issue a blanket exclusion of all business processes as outside the ambit of the useful arts. But the Supreme Court has recently decided that something more than a mere "abstract idea" is needed before a patent can issue.
Wednesday, 11 March 2015 at 17:10:00 GMT
Thursday, 12 March 2015 at 08:08:00 GMT
Not strictly an answer to either question, but I would suggest (if you haven't already) reading the Aerotel / Macrossan Court of Appeal decision more or less in full.It is now 8 years old and far from the Court of Appeal's final word on the matter, but it still stands in England, and the reasoning is clear and accessible (more so than many more recent cases). Of course, some (e.g. EPO boards of appeal, for example) do not agree with the decision, and it is fair to say that it causes some practical difficulties. Keeping that in mind, it's still worth reading.For the other side of the argument (i.e. why the EPO is right and the Court of Appeal is wrong), "Patent Law for Computer Scientists" (Closa, Gardiner, Giemsa, Machek) has a good chapter 1, which gives a clear explanation of the EPO approach. Chapters 2 onwards in my opinion are less good, failing in their stated aim of enhancing the explanation through "real world" examples.
Thursday, 12 March 2015 at 09:19:00 GMT
Can Freddie say what is the "argument" he tells us there are two sidesto? I will assume, till he says otherwise, that it is whether to address the contribution under Art 52 or 54/6 EPC. That particular argument is still hot, not only in Europe but also in the USA, but there the terminology is different. When considering eligibility under 35 USC 101, before you go on to look at patentability over the art, do you take account of what purports to be the contribution?So thanks to Freddie for reminding us about the Aerotel logic, still topical.
Thursday, 12 March 2015 at 10:00:00 GMT
Thursday, 12 March 2015 at 10:07:00 GMT
MaxDrei, yes, more or less that is the "argument" I am referring to. Whether the contribution is addressed, and prior art taken into account, when considering Art. 52 or Art 54/56 is in practical terms the key difference.I would also point to the apparent disagreement as to the actual meaning of the list of excluded subject matter in Art 52 - is it merely a set of examples of things that aren't in "fields of technology", or a firm list of things which are consciously and specifically excluded?Of course there are many more than two sides to the debate... para 26 of Aerotel/Macrossan sets out at least 5 different approaches found in the case law at the time.
Thursday, 12 March 2015 at 10:42:00 GMT
Thursday, 12 March 2015 at 11:03:00 GMT
The timing couldn't be better - I have just read of the UK IPO's decision in Bluecava Inc's application. In the light of that, I might add to my reading list the 26 page letter dated 7th October 2014 from Hepworth Browne on behalf of the Applicant in that case.Sadly it's not online - you'll have to file form 23 and invest five pounds to receive a copy. Nonetheless it promises to be a good read. Quotations in the UK IPO decision include:"the Aerotel decision is a shambles that remains inconsistent with the EPC and thus in contravention to section 130(7) of the Act""until the UKIPO get to grips with both the underlying intent and irreconcilable frailties of Aerotel, the system of effective patent law is compromised..."Sadly these protestations didn't do Bluecava Inc much good, since the UK IPO is bound by UK Courts whether it agrees with them or not, or thinks the EPO does it better. In that respect it is also worth noting that the Aerotel / Macrossan test was in fact originally a proposal from UK IPO's counsel which was accepted by the Court.
Thursday, 12 March 2015 at 12:42:00 GMT
Thursday, 12 March 2015 at 15:53:00 GMT
Thursday, 12 March 2015 at 23:53:00 GMT
Frddie motivated me to read Aerotel. One of the joys of reading it is to encounter in para 125 Sedley's dry observation in the Dyson case that "people do not make inventions in a vacuum".But see para 121 et seq for the extracts from the charming judgement of Peter Prescott in CFPH, complete with his likening of a program for a computer with a "little man" sitting at a "control panel". I think they might help the commenter immediately above.You have to imagine that the Little Man is executing the "rules" recited in the patent claim in view.If the rules are controlling a process of making something, the claim is eligible. If the rules are for running a business, they are not. The EPO's Boards of Appeal are intensively exploring the grey area in between, mapping it with ever-greater precision. Friday, 13 March 2015 at 09:26:00 GMT
The imagining of "a little man" is expressly the wrong way to look at this.There is technical invention precisely because there is NO little man there.
Friday, 13 March 2015 at 11:53:00 GMT
Anon at 16:49 asks if the claim in Alice would fail at the Art 52 EPC eligibility hurdle. Let's assume the claim is to a computer-implemented method. I think it would fail in England but at the EPO would get over the low "technical character" hurdle.Wouldn't do it any good though, for it would then go down on Art 54+56 patentability. What England filters out as ineligible Munich strikes down as unpatentable.
Friday, 13 March 2015 at 17:02:00 GMT
Friday, 13 March 2015 at 17:29:00 GMT
Marcin, why in this area the paucity of caselaw on novelty? I will suggest one thing for you to chew on. Perhaps others will supply more.Novelty is (unlike eligibility and obviousness) legally a relatively black and white issue. As a practical matter, therefore, it is usually quite easy, with a deft tweak of the claim, to defeat novelty attacks. So, novelty objections usually don't survive long enough to get as far as a reported Decision. If you are the Patent Office and want to see off a crap claim, you might then favour an eligibility or obviousnes attack over a novelty attack that is painstaking to perfect, but easily got around by the Applicant.And, in the EPO, why have interminable argument about whether that which confers novelty is or is not "technical"? Cut to the chase instead. Blow away the bad claim with the full blast of an obviousness objection that Applicant is not going to be able to finesse around.Course, in the USA it's different (as ever). There, obviousness objections are harder to drive through to a conclusion. Applicant fights them, often with ridiculous evidence of comercial success (that has no nexus with the invention but proving that is hard). Hence the current emphasis in the USA on the eligibility tool, to cut through all that attorney BS and get rid of bad claims. Friday, 13 March 2015 at 22:36:00 GMT