X-Sympa-To: patents
Return-Path: <ehj@cleosan.com>
Delivered-To: patents@aful.org
Received: from cleosan.com (unknown [194.198.15.242])
	by stabilite.aful.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDCBD6F809
	for <patents@aful.org>; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 22:59:06 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from 194-206.241.81.adsl.skynet.be ([81.241.206.194] helo=cleosan.com)
	by cleosan.com with asmtp (Exim 4.12)
	id 1C8Pm7-0004lK-00; Fri, 17 Sep 2004 22:56:11 +0200
Message-ID: <414B4F6E.6000501@cleosan.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 22:56:14 +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" <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> <4148C569.5090100@cleosan.com> <414B4069.6050006@freesurf.fr>
In-Reply-To: <414B4069.6050006@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:

> As far as I can see, the patent office isn't very aggressive when it 
> objects to patent claims. Their attitude seems to be : we warn them, but 
> if they want to go ahead, we grant the patent. I think that resources 
> for processing the application of so much in favor of the applicant that 
> the examiner cannot spend the time he would need to argue against the 
> applicant.

Recently the Swedish PTO rejected an application by Ericsson because it 
was a mathematical method. Rejection was appealed and the appeal 
accepted by the Swedish Court of Patent Appeals (case 00-353) who said 
while the appelant had accepted to delete some claims, the invention now 
had a technical character, so the case could go back to the SePTO.

//Erik

