From pgeller@rcf.usc.edu  Sat Jul 21 22:43:06 2001
From: pgeller@rcf.usc.edu (Paul Edward Geller)
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 14:43:06 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Patents] Re: [FYI] 16% Increase in EPO Filings
In-Reply-To: <0.700002152.979982527-738719082-995747434@topica.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0107211435230.6533-100000@mizar.usc.edu>


On Sat, 21 Jul 2001, PILCH Hartmut wrote:
	[...] 
> 
> Technical inventions occur between an abstract idea and its
> materialisation.  When you write computer programs or design hardware with
> co-design tools, there is nothing inventive between the abstract idea and
> its materialisation. However, when you write a chemical formula (which is
> an abstract idea), you have not solved any problem.  The work is in making
> a reaction actually work the way you conceived it.  
>
	The word "between" here is ambiguous.  How much "materialisation"
must show up in the patent disclosure?  What we in the U.S. call the "best
mode" for making and/or using the invention?  To what degree must the
patent applicant specify actual materials, conditions of use, etc.?
	Cordially, Paul
	http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~pgeller/ 



