[%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 == 'jonas.maebe@ugent.be' || is_owner %074db819ec) (074db819ec% END %074db819ec)
(074db819ec% END %074db819ec)


On 20 aug 2004, at 01:31, Hartmut Pilch wrote:

Our European Associate advises that the EPO Technical Board of Appeal,
in the recent Hitachi decision T258/03, has extended the teaching of the
Pensions Benefit case, T931/95, to say that methods of doing business
are potentially patentable provided the claimed method contains
technical features.

I think this is the best quote from that decision (page 16 of http://legal.european-patent-office.org/dg3/pdf/t030258ex1.pdf):

'The Board is aware that its comparatively broad interpretation of the term "invention" in Article 52(1) EPC will include activities which are so familiar that their technical character tends to be overlooked, such as the act of writing using pen and paper.'

When will we get a directive on "pen and paper-implemented inventions" to "codify the status quo" and to prevent a further drift towards patents on "writings as such"? :)


Jonas





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

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