Re: [Patents] "Further technical effect"

[James Heald <j.heald@ucl.ac.uk>]

Gregory Aharonian wrote:
> 
> James proposes the following:
> >In this spirit, the following should all be considered non-technical
> >and non-patentable: the underlying ideas of software (or algorithms);
> >information processing methods; representations of information and data;
> >methods of interaction between human beings and computers"
> 
> What is your definition of the word "technical"?

Sorry, Greg.  I know, I'm guilty of crimes against the language police.


The origin of the word "technical" in this sense (as I guess you know
full well) is rule 27 EPC (the description must specify a technical
field) and rule 29 (the claims must define technical features).

The operational definition of "technical" is thus whatever would be
acceptable under rule 27 and rule 29  

:-)  [or should that be  :-(  ?]

Subsequently the EPO rationalised the exclusions of Article 52(2) as
having the common characteristic that they were not technical.

This is reiterated in recital 7 of the new directive.

Since then TRIPS has mandated that patents should be available for
inventions in all fields of technology.

So now the only way to rule out classes of patent applications for
whatever reasons (eg social, economic, historical, whatever) is to
declare them 'non-technical'.


Which is perhaps a little way from my dictionary's definition (Collins
Concise, 1999):

"technical: adj. 
        1. of or specializing in industrial, practical or mechanical arts and
applied sciences.  
        2. skilled in practical arts rather than abstract thinking.
        3. relating to a particular field of activity, eg 'the technical 
jargon
of linguistics'.
        4. existing by virtue of a strict application of the rules or a strict
interpretation of the wording, eg 'a technical loophole in the law'.
        5. of or showing technique, eg 'technical brilliance' ".

But, hey, language evolves, right ?  (just not necessarily always
forwards).


For the EPO's current position on what is or isn't technical, see my
original post.

The FFII have successfully persuaded the Greens, some Socialists, and
with luck substantially more MEPs to adopt the definition (Echerer et
al, Am 45):

        "technical field" means an industrial application domain requiring the
use of controllable forces of nature to achieve predictable results. 
"Technical" means "belonging to a technical field".  The uses of forces
of nature to control physical effects beyond the numerical
representation of information belongs to a technical domain.  The
production, handling, processing, distribution and presentation of
information do not belong to a technical domain, even when technical
devices are employed for such purposes.

The industry committee ITRE declined to fully define technical, but
proposed that (Am 11 (Itre)):

        "A computer-implemented invention shall not be regarded as making a
technical contribution merely because it involves the use of a computer,
or other apparatus.  Accordingly, inventions involving computer programs
which implement business, mathematical or other methods, which
inventions do not produce any technical effects beyond the manipulation
and representation of information within computer-system or network,
shall not be patentable."


As for me, I'll keep my head down until the elephants have finished
dancing.

But I really don't want to see patents on the details of screen-based
user interfaces.