EPO/McCarthy logic

[PILCH Hartmut <phm@a2e.de>]

> Note that to know if something is an invention you have to compare it
> wiht it's already known. Look at the difference, see it is not null 
> (novelty), 
> see if it is obvious 
> for an expert, and see if that difference is patentable subject 
> matter (techcical = forces of nature... ) . 
> 
> The order is not important, the important thing is to apply all tests 
> to the same thing. You cannot say let's look at a whole and say the whole
> is patentable subject matter, there's something there that's new and 
> something else inventive, os the whole can be patented.

Correct.

This however implies that the "thing" to which the tests are applied is
established first.  Which again implies that the examiner has to look hard
at the claims and make sure they are written in a formal correct way so
that such a "thing" can be identified.

All this almost goes without saying, and is well established in patent
tradition.

Normally, the sequence of steps of examination is not the legislator's
business but an internal affair of an adinistrative organ.
Unfortunately the EPO is not an organ but rather a center of gravity,
and many of our would-be leaders are weak enough to be sucked onto
an orbit and revolve around it.

-- 
Hartmut Pilch, FFII & Eurolinux Alliance              tel. +49-89-12789608   
Protecting Innovation against Patent Inflation       http://swpat.ffii.org/
135,000 signatures against software patents      http://www.noepatents.org/