Re: Business methods patents in national European offices

[Gregory Aharonian <srctran@world.std.com>]

>>Whatever technology was thrown into the patent to get it issued, any
>>novelty here is solely in the financial calculations on the futures
>>and options.

>Interesting that even Greg A. distinguishes between "technology" and
>"financial calculation".

Let me restate for those reading this who aren't adults:  Whatever
electronics technology was thrown into the patent to get it issued,
any novelty here is solely in the financial technology on the futures
and options.

And if this is still confusing use of language, that is the very point
of the State Street decision here in America - you can't drawn clean
lines to then use those lines to a priori reject entire classes of
patents.  It is much more objective to reject on lack of novelty
grounds, or lack of providing a fully enabling disclosure grounds
(though slightly lesser objective on the obvious/inventive-step
grounds).

And whoever said at Amsterdam that I suppled them with 500 papers,
tons of prior art, to kill a patent, is not someone I have ever
worked with.  I suspect you just made up that exaggeration, since
it is a silly lie if you think about it.

Someone pointed out that the GB patent numbers I supplied were to
published patent applications, not issued patents.  It would be
nice if the big world patent database WIPO maintains made it easier
to more quickly distinguish the two types of patents.

Greg Aharonian