[%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% END %074db819ec)

From: Hartmut Pilch <phm@a2e.de>
To: Christian Beauprez <beauprez@beauprez.fsnet.co.uk>
Cc: patents@aful.org
Subject: Re: [Patents] The "as such" clause
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 13:39:51 +0100 (CET)

> To those who know the context of patent claims, Art 52(3) becomes even
> clearer.
>
> It lets you derive the following test, which is found in the EPO
> Examination Guidelines of 1978 in similar form:

See

        http://swpat.ffii.org/analysis/epc52/

on this.  I'll include a link to your article there.

--
Hartmut Pilch, FFII & Eurolinux Alliance              tel. +49-89-18979927
Protecting Innovation against Patent Inflation       http://swpat.ffii.org/
300,000 votes 2000 firms against software patents    http://noepatents.org/

The "as such" clause, Christian Beauprez
- Re: [Patents] The "as such" clause, Hartmut Pilch
  - Re: [Patents] The "as such" clause, Hartmut Pilch
    - Re: [Patents] The "as such" clause, Hartmut Pilch
- Re: [Patents] The "as such" clause, Carsten Svaneborg
  - Re: [Patents] The "as such" clause, Hartmut Pilch

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

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