[%TAGS (074db819ec% %074db819ec) %]

(074db819ec% subtitle %074db819ec)


(074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)chronological(074db819ec% END %074db819ec) (074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)Thread(074db819ec% END %074db819ec) 
(074db819ec% IF user.email && action == 'arc' %074db819ec)
(074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)Reply to sender(074db819ec%END%074db819ec) (074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)to list(074db819ec%END%074db819ec)

(074db819ec% IF user.email == 'beauprez@beauprez.fsnet.co.uk' || is_owner %074db819ec) (074db819ec% END %074db819ec)
(074db819ec% END %074db819ec)

Just wanted to bring this up with everyone.
 
 Erik was saying that the TBA board are the ones who the EPO refer to for interpretation of the "as such" clause.
 
This quite surprised me because to me the "as such" clause seems pretty straightforward. (mind you a lot of things that seem straightforward to the rest of us seem complicated to the EPO) Let's recap,
 
"(3) The provisions of paragraph 2 shall exclude patentability of the subject-matter or activities referred to in that provision only to the extent to which a European patent application or European patent relates to such subject-matter or activities as such. "
 
To me this clause is saying that while inventions that include software are allowable, the patent application cannot extend patentability to the computer program itself.
I certainly think the EPO's broad interpretation on this is a step too far by any stretch of the imagination.
 
Is this what everyone else thinks or do you have a different perspective of what this clause means?



(074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)Archive powered by(074db819ec%END%074db819ec) MhonArc 2.6.16.

(074db819ec%TAGS [% %]%074db819ec)