Re: [Patents] "condition of ..." amendment

[Xavi Drudis Ferran <xdrudis@tinet.org>]

El Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 08:46:35AM +0200, Jozef Halbersztadt deia:

> Only one additional note. Quoted by you part of Guidelines was never 
> amended and is in force till now.
>

Interesting. 

About your proposal. It would seem that you can claim obvious
combinations of different technical devices with non-obvious 
non-technical features. But I may be misunderstanding you. 

Consider a washing machine in prior art, a computer in prior 
art and a computer display (maybe a touch screen, it doesn't matter)
in prior art. 

Would a washing machine having a computer and screen that 
makes it easier to use (thorugh menus isntead of criptic program 
numbers) and that dispalys the progress of the washing with text
and graphics. Assume there is no such GUI enabled washing machine
in prior art, that it is new and has industrial application. 

Would it pass your technical field test?. 

> 
> Member States shall ensure that a computer-implemented invention is
> patentable on condition that it is susceptible of industrial
> application, is new, involves an inventive step and belongs to a
> technical field.
> 
> Member States shall ensure that the use of natural forces to control
> physical effect belongs to a technical field. The processing, handling
> and presentation of information do not belong to a technical field,
> regardless of whether they are executed in the human mind or by means
> of technical devices.
> 
> The belonging to a technical field shall be assessed by consideration
> of the difference between all of the technical features of the patent
> claim and the state of art.
>

washing machine, screen and processor are technical (not new, not inventive,
but technical). The question is if their combination is not in 
prior art, only the parts alone, would it pass this test?. 

> Member States shall ensure that it is a condition of involving an
> inventive step that a computer-implemented invention must make a
> technical contribution.
> 
> The technical contribution shall be assessed by consideration of the
> difference between the scope of the patent claim considered as a whole,
> elements of which may comprise both technical and non-technical
> features, and the state of art.
>

the combination of washing machine, screen and processor is obvious,
but the software may be non-obvious (if you can say so of any software, 
but no law says you can't, I think?). Apparently, even is software
is nontechnical, it would pass the inventiveness test. 


So would that washing machine be patentable under your proposal?. 


My concern is that we are not looking a the invention itself, the
teaching, but at the claimed object, and then we may be unable to 
apply all the tests to the teaching, which is the only thing that 
would deserve a patent, not the claims. 

-- 
Xavi Drudis Ferran
xdrudis@tinet.org