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

[Jozef Halbersztadt <halber@idea.net.pl>]

 Xavi Drudis Ferran wrote:

> 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?. 

1. If technicality is non-innovative, innovative non-technicality does 
not make an

invention.

2. If technicality is inventive, non-technical innovativity can be part 
of the invention.


There is no simple answer whether washing machine, screen and processor 
each of them is not

new, not innovative, together are inventive. But only if their assembly 
is inventive than

software  (GUI) can be a part of the invention.