X-Sympa-To: patents
Return-Path: <ehj@cleosan.com>
Delivered-To: patents@aful.org
Received: from av2-2-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (av2-2-sn3.vrr.skanova.net [81.228.9.108])
	by stabilite.aful.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A64476E59C
	for <patents@aful.org>; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 00:45:42 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by av2-2-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (Postfix, from userid 502)
	id 8E8F237ECB; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 00:42:55 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from smtp1-1-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (smtp1-1-sn3.vrr.skanova.net [81.228.9.177])
	by av2-2-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 8146A37E86; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 00:42:55 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from cleosan.com (h14n2fls33o988.telia.com [213.67.225.14])
	by smtp1-1-sn3.vrr.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 578B238003;
	Thu, 16 Sep 2004 00:42:55 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <4148C569.5090100@cleosan.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 00:42:49 +0200
From: Erik Josefsson <ehj@cleosan.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (X11/20040229)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jean-Marc_Le_Peuv=E9dic?= <cocktails@freesurf.fr>
Cc: patents@aful.org
Subject: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re=3A_=5BPatents=5D_Re=3A_=5Bcontacts=5D_?=
 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re=3A_proposition_d=27action__eu_rop=E9enn_e_?=
 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=3A_financement_d=27un_cabinet_de_lobbyingprofe?=
 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?ssionnel?=
References: <41400ACA.2000904@libertysurf.fr>	<20040909123757.GD3360@margaux.inria.fr>	<6.0.1.1.0.20040909150932.032adec0@pop-serv.inrialpes.fr>	<1095178972.2869.79.camel@dushnock.local>	<6.0.1.1.0.20040914183123.0353bec0@pop-serv.inrialpes.fr>	<Pine.LNX.4.58.0409141952130.8415@querty.oas.a2e.de>	<6.0.1.1.0.20040914202323.0343cec0@pop-serv.inrialpes.fr> <41474FE1.875428F7@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> <4147E1DD.5040706@freesurf.fr>
In-Reply-To: <4147E1DD.5040706@freesurf.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Validation-by: ehj@cleosan.com

Jean-Marc Le Peuvdic wrote:

> One of the easiest ways to reach a wrong interpretation is to wrongly 
> understand the word invention. For most of us, invention means 
> "patentable subject matter" (implies that it doesn't fall in one of the 
> categories excluded from patentable subject matter, like business 
> methods). For the EPO it only means that the claims have technical 
> characteristics, which is always, or can always be, the case since they 
> would even accept "pen and paper"-implemented inventions as far as 
> business methods are concerned.

Indeed this is said quite clearly in T 1173/97:

"programs for computers must be considered as patentable inventions when 
they have a technical character."

"A "program as such" (excluded from patentability) would therefore in 
fact be a non-technical program."

http://legal.european-patent-office.org/dg3/pdf/t971173ep1.pdf

//Erik

