X-Sympa-To: patents
Return-Path: <pelegrin@labri.fr>
Delivered-To: patents@aful.org
Received: from iona.labri.fr (iona.labri.fr [147.210.8.143])
	by stabilite.aful.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4F7159C2E
	for <patents@aful.org>; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 15:13:59 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from localhost (guismo.drimm.u-bordeaux1.fr [147.210.36.243])
	by localhost.labri.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CC4A13C21;
	Mon, 21 Jun 2004 15:14:07 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from iona.labri.fr ([147.210.8.143])
 by localhost (guismo [147.210.36.243]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP
 id 25598-01-7; Mon, 21 Jun 2004 15:14:04 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from labri.fr (brol.labri.fr [147.210.9.226])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(Client did not present a certificate)
	by iona.labri.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B8BC13C0B;
	Mon, 21 Jun 2004 15:14:04 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <40D6F089.6050804@labri.fr>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 16:28:25 +0200
From: Francois PELLEGRINI <pelegrin@labri.fr>
Organization: INRIA & LaBRI, Universite Bordeaux I
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030630
X-Accept-Language: fr, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jozef Halbersztadt <halber@idea.net.pl>
Cc: Simo Sorce <simo.sorce@xsec.it>,
	Xavi Drudis Ferran <xdrudis@tinet.org>, PILCH Hartmut <phm@a2e.de>,
	patents@aful.org
Subject: Re: [Patents] "condition of ..." amendment
References: <20030626195503.AF1B29727F@querty.oas.a2e.de> <3EFBE84B.5040209@idea.net.pl> <20030627074934.GH501@golem> <3EFC33FF.2030403@idea.net.pl> <1056718414.2602.54.camel@localhost> <3EFC4656.1090103@idea.net.pl>
In-Reply-To: <3EFC4656.1090103@idea.net.pl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at u-bordeaux1.fr
X-Validation-by: pelegrin@labri.fr


Hello all,


Jozef Halbersztadt wrote:
[...]
>>> 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.
>>
>> Shouldn't this case (washing machine) fall under the obviousness clause?
>>
>> Such washing machine seem to be the obvious outcome to an engineer.
>>
> Combination of known parts is not always obvious.
> 
> The combined elements mutually support each other in their effects to 
> such extent that a new technical result is achiewed. It is irrelevant 
> whether each individual element is fully or partly known by itself.

I have developed an argumentation against the
"washing-machine" propaganda. It is available
from here :

http://www.abul.org/article191.html  (english)
http://www.abul.org/article190.html  (french)

Software can by no means be considered "technical",
else every software should be. There is no other
possibility.



				f.p.


