[Patents] Diplomatic Conference

[John Smith notobvious@hotmail.com]

I've also heard informally that the Diplomatic Conference has voted not to 
amend Article 52(2).

What does this mean? Since the law remains unchanged, so does the 
jurisprudence. In other words, the EPO's test of "technicity" continues to 
be applied. I have some sympathy with Greg Aharonian's question about this 
term, but then the patent world is full of weird language nobody else 
understands (Greg, if you still have your dictionary out, look up "means 
for" some time). Come to think of it, so is the computing world full of 
weird language. It's no use complaining if you don't understand somebody 
else's field - get an expert, ie a patent attorney in the present case.

I understand "technical" to come from the Greek "techne", the useful arts, 
which word in turn is derived from "tekton" or carpenter. So it implies 
something to do with the practical world. There is a minority view (which I 
share) that "technical" is actually defined in the EPC in Articles 52 and 
57, which say that an invention must be "capable of industrial application", 
ie made or used in any kind of industry. Do I recall talk of the "software 
industry"? Hartmut might like to tell us all what the literal meaning of the 
German "gewerblich anwendbar" is.

A question somebody from Sweden raised concerned Article 84 EPC. This says 
that claims must be clear and supported by the description, a requirement 
dear to the heart of every Brit. There was a proposal that this be made a 
ground of opposition, but I understand the majority are against it.

It needs to be remembered that the Diplomatic Conference is not about 
software patents. It has two main aims - to bring search and examination 
together (BEST) where the EPO arguably really is acting illegally, although 
from sensible motives, and to transfer various parts of the EPC into the 
Rules to make it easier to amend it in future. The former change is wise, 
the latter (in my opinion) highly dangerous. It takes power out of the hands 
of elected politicians and puts it in the hands of civil servants who are 
accountable to no-one. The reason this is being done is a fear that the 
number of member states of the EPC is now so large that agreement on 
amendments is nigh impossible. From what I'm hearing of the Diplomatic 
Conference this may well be true. This is the background to the discussion 
of Articles 35 and 36 EPC.

"notobvious"
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Get more from the Web.  FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com