tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post1673291743885290606..comments2024-03-28T16:45:51.051+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Don't change European software patent rules, say CIPAVerónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger44125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-31468747053666190352010-04-09T00:46:05.279+01:002010-04-09T00:46:05.279+01:00The anon of May 05, 2009 1:29PM had truly remarkab...The anon of May 05, 2009 1:29PM had truly remarkable foresight:<br />"I consider the test "happens in the human mind" completely irrelevant for assessing the technicality of an invention.<br />(...)<br />There are several inventions which rely on an effect in the mind of the observer (the cinema for example) and nobody ever considered them to be non technical."<br /><br />According to the recent decision <a href="http://legal.european-patent-office.org/dg3/pdf/t061749eu1.pdf" rel="nofollow">T 1749/06</a>:<br />"4.2.3 The board is further of the view that the test "happens in the brain of the viewer", invoked by the examining division, is not useful for deciding whether a feature contributes to the technical character of a claim or not. Inventions such as the cinematograph are based on an effect which only "happens in the brain of the viewer", namely that the projection of a rapid succession of still images on a screen creates the illusion of fluent motion. Although the illusion of perceiving a real action is only created in the viewer's brain, nobody would seriously contest that the cinematograph is an invention based on technical features."<br /><br />One would almost get the impression that the Board reads this blog.<br /><br />Personally I still have some doubts, essentially based on what the Board then adds:<br />"It may be argued that the apparatus of the cinematograph comprises technical elements with the ultimate purpose to create the illusion of motion in the viewer's brain. However, in the present case the dark and light stripes are also technical elements which contribute to creating the three-dimensional illusion."<br /><br />If we assume for the moment that visual illusions are non-technical, it still seems likely that a cinema projector that implements that illusion involved an inventive step at the time of its development. So the feeling that the cinematograph must have been patentable does not necessitate that visual illusions must be considered technical. On the other hand, if creating a visual 3d illusion using a particular pattern (the subject of T 1749/06) is considered non-technical, then a technical implementation of this visual illusion using technical tools such as a known mobile phone display will normally be obvious.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-85353149853566478552009-05-07T00:44:00.000+01:002009-05-07T00:44:00.000+01:00@Anonymous of 8:01PM:
T 1227/05 has this to say ab...@Anonymous of 8:01PM:<br />T 1227/05 has this to say about the "it runs faster / consumes less energy / uses less memory"-argument:<br />"3.2.5 In this context the board notes that the above conclusion cannot be drawn from the mere observation that a claimed method runs faster than a "conceivable" reference method (see point IV(d) above). As it is always possible to conceive of a slower reference method, a mere speed comparison is not a suitable criterion for distinguishing between technical and non-technical procedural steps. If, for example, a sequence of auction steps leads to price determination more quickly than some other auction method, that does not necessarily imply that the auction steps contribute to the technical character of the method (see T 258/03)."<br />In T 258/03, the Board reasoned that a change of the business scheme that reduces the need for data transmission was not a technical solution of a technical problem, but a circumvention. Maybe the same works here: purely algorithmic changes do not solve but circumvent...<br /><br />Maybe another way to look at it is to realise that speed / power consumption / memory usage all belong to the normal technical effects of a program running on a computer, so are not "further" technical effects. (But you have to be careful... using less power by executing the HALT instruction is probably a further technical effect, but of course not inventive.) As long as "improved" speed / power consumption / memory usage is only achieved through purely algorithmic changes, this would not improve a "further" technical effect.<br /><br />So if two algorithms for a cache management system result in essentially the same system from a "technical" point of view, except that one algorithm is O(n^2) and the other is O(n), then I am fairly confident that this difference is non-technical. On the other hand, if the improved algorithm improves caching behaviour (which also happens to result in reduced energy consumption), the difference is probably technical.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-75315136126492292242009-05-07T00:22:00.000+01:002009-05-07T00:22:00.000+01:00@Anonymous of 8:26AM:
"(my example of the cinema w...@Anonymous of 8:26AM:<br />"(my example of the cinema was aiming at the persistence of the image in the eye/mind which creates the illusion of a fluent motion while in fact only a succesion of still images is projected)."<br /><br />My apologies for completely missing that point. I agree that making use of the illusion effect is technical. Wikipedia tells me that in 1912, "persistence of vision" was shown by Max Wertheimer to be brain centered and not eye centered. So it is definitely an effect on the brain.<br /><br />"A test which gives a different answer depending on the case is thus irrelevant if not plainly the wrong test."<br /><br />Absolutely.<br /><br />You have convinced me that an effect that relies on how the brain functions may still be technical. So if the "effect on the mind"-test is to be retained, it should be refined. If subjective factors are involved, I would still be very hesitant to call the effect technical. However, maybe it should then be argued that the effect is not achieved over the whole claimed scope.<br /><br />Anyway, I still believe that a case by case analysis can lead to the development of usable tests for (non-)technicality, as long as the Boards are willing to clearly state why they follow certain cases and deviate from others (and not simply ignore the issue as in T 1446/04, although certainly the nature of an opposition appeal may have been the reason there). At least the answer to "is it technical" is not dependent on the filing date (ignoring T 1227/05, r. 3.4.2).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-30278419742993893812009-05-06T12:43:00.000+01:002009-05-06T12:43:00.000+01:00If the "narrative skill" of the parties will deter...If the "narrative skill" of the parties will determine the boundary of what is or is not "technical" then we in Europe can all be grateful for the sheer number of opposition cases at the EPO, where cases get decided, by narrative force, on a level "preponderance of evidence" playing field. If "technical" is the optimal test, it will deliver, bit by bit, an ever-sharper line between what is patentable and what is not. Conversely, if and when the line starts to get fuzzier, DG3 will then need a better test. So far so good, can we say?MaxDreinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-45644892244925346212009-05-06T08:26:00.000+01:002009-05-06T08:26:00.000+01:00My two contributions in this discussion: that the ...My two contributions in this discussion: that the frontier on what is technical is fractal like (ie it becomes more and more complex the more you think on it) and the second that the test "happens in the mind" is irrelevant for deciding if something is technical or not. <br /><br />I believe that the discussion showed that the subject is extremely complex and that it is nearly impossible to draw clear cut lines. The "is it technical" issue is far more general than software or CII and arises with bussiness methods, games and even in traditional domains like mechanics (eg fences). An interesting case of Board 3402 is T 619/02, in which the effect of odours for improving remembering a certain brand was claimed.<br /><br />The test "happens in the mind" is in my view irrelevant, since in some cases a technical effect may be associated to it while in others not (my example of the cinema was aiming at the persistence of the image in the eye/mind which creates the illusion of a fluent motion while in fact only a succesion of still images is projected). A test which gives a different answer depending on the case is thus irrelevant if not plainly the wrong test.<br /><br />What about the hypothetic case that by playing a Bach cantata to milk cows their milk production is increased? Apart of the issue of credibility (which has nothing to do with technicality) would this be seen as technical? I cannot see why specific sound waves should be treated differently than chemical compounds (eg an hormon for increasing milk production).<br /><br />It seems that what is seen as technical depends a lot of the narrative skills of the parties.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-37443322877923793512009-05-05T21:22:00.000+01:002009-05-05T21:22:00.000+01:00The blue squash ball case featured by Foley and Ho...The blue squash ball case featured by Foley and Hoffmann is based on a real case in the English court, where a professional squash racquets player gave affidavit evidence (on behalf of Applicant Dunlop) that a blue ball delivered a superior technical effect. The case was remitted to the Patent Office with a finding that the claim was directed to matter that was inherently patentable. Would the TBA have done the same? Who knows. It would surely have given the witness testimony scant weight.MaxDreinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-53799001763607941892009-05-05T20:01:00.000+01:002009-05-05T20:01:00.000+01:00"further" technical effect
Even if it consumes _l..."further" technical effect<br /><br />Even if it consumes _less_ (improvement) energy because smaler number of procesor cycles? <br /><br />So the cache managements system for disk invention not depends on type of algorithm used for cache management?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-51588860797598808032009-05-05T19:29:00.000+01:002009-05-05T19:29:00.000+01:00"E.g. I may patent quicksort because it execution ..."E.g. I may patent quicksort because it execution consumes less power than execution of bubblesort."<br /><br />The argument fails already when a general purpose computer is taken as a starting point for the inventive step assessment. Compared to a general purpose computer, a computer (quick-)sorting an address list sorts an address list. Sorting an address list is not technical. The computer sorting the address list therefore lacks inventive step.<br /><br />In general, I think it is unlikely that a technical effect can be based on the comparison of one algorithm to another algorithm. The effect should already be there before you do the comparison. The comparison is there for finding out which effects are caused (or improved) by the features distinguishing the invention from the prior art.<br /><br />Of course you can say that any program, when executing on a computer, consumes energy. This is true, but it is not a "further" technical effect, since this is one of the normal physical effects of a program running on a computer.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-59379242876171165992009-05-05T18:42:00.000+01:002009-05-05T18:42:00.000+01:00"Less power consumption compared to what? It's alw..."Less power consumption compared to what? It's always possible to come up with arguments, but they should also be convincing."<br /><br />Simply to naive version of software doing the same thing with greater complexity. E.g. I may patent quicksort because it execution consumes less power than execution of bubblesort.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-31322154205198286122009-05-05T18:18:00.000+01:002009-05-05T18:18:00.000+01:00@MaxDrei:
I did not know the "blue squash ball" ca...@MaxDrei:<br />I did not know the "blue squash ball" case (discussed e.g. <A HREF="http://cs.foley.com/06.2689_TACPI/2006_TACPI/tacp_downloads/AmericanKSRObviousness/S1_2_Inventive%20Step_C%20Furling%20-%20latest%20version.pdf" REL="nofollow">here</A>).<br /><br />It seems to me that a 3.5.01-minded Board would not easily accept the effect as technical. Maybe the argument could succeed if the effect could be shown to rely on the working of the human eye instead of the brain...<br /><br />Somewhat related is T 619/02, e.g. point 2.3.2. According to the applicant the claimed method relied on subconscious perceptual associations. Board 3.4.02:<br />"Thus, the "mechanism" underlying the selection procedure of the claimed invention leaves the domain of "technicity" and enters the domain of subjectivity inherent to human perception, i.e. of what - at least presently - lacks an objective causal description to the extent proper to mechanisms of a technical nature. This conclusion is not altered by the fact that human perception phenomena may well be governed by complex neurological processes in the human brain that in turn are ultimately governed by chemical and physical processes. The perceptual associations in the human mind, and in particular those underlying the claimed method, generally depend on personal factors (cultural background, gender, age, past experiences, capacity to evoke dormant meanings and emotions, perception subjectivity, etc.) and vary, for the same person, according to the actual circumstances of the moment. Thus, irrespective of the degree of repeatability or reproducibility of the claimed method itself, the mechanism underlying the selection method, i.e. that which is taking place in the mind of the test person, does not belong to the kind of mechanisms that can be reproduced and repeated under the same or analogous conditions to lead consistently to the same or similar results with the degree of objective verification and reliability that is generally attributed to mechanisms of a technical nature."<br /><br />However, the facts in T 619/02 are a bit different, since it is pretty clear that subjective choices are being made there. The improved visibility of a blue squash ball might instead be a fully objective fact.<br /><br />@Anonymous of 4:37PM:<br />Less power consumption compared to what? It's always possible to come up with arguments, but they should also be convincing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-72232176185840092862009-05-05T17:25:00.000+01:002009-05-05T17:25:00.000+01:00But even if in practice the stripes make the cows ...But even if in practice the stripes make the cows less likely to stumble into it, the deterring effect remains a crucial link. If this link is considered non-technical, any other effect further in the chain should not be able to restore technicality.<br /><br />To me, deterring animals is sufficient for a technical effect, provided that the deterrence relies on some "technical" principle. Of course the anonymous of 1:29PM has a good point that sometimes the exact principle that makes an invention work is simply not (yet) known. In T 1121/02 the exact principle was also not known, but in the view of the Board the fact that it was an effect on the animal's brain was sufficient to conclude that it was non-technical. Interesting decision.<br /><br />In any case, T 1121/02 nicely shows that technicality issues are not restricted to computer-implemented inventions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-81657067330825670502009-05-05T16:37:00.001+01:002009-05-05T16:37:00.001+01:00So it seems that any software is CII because you m...So it seems that any software is CII because you may always argue that it causes less power consumpion of computer.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-40842952285037389242009-05-05T16:37:00.000+01:002009-05-05T16:37:00.000+01:00Does anybody remember the "blue squash ball" case?...Does anybody remember the "blue squash ball" case? The evidence proved that a player picks up the flight of a blue ball faster than that of the conventional black squash ball. Is that effect, in the brain of the human player, one that is "technical"?MaxDreinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-31974939496541705592009-05-05T16:03:00.000+01:002009-05-05T16:03:00.000+01:00I now have T1121/02 and T1567/05 and note that bot...I now have T1121/02 and T1567/05 and note that both are appeals from ED cases represented by UK attorney firms. As to the stripey electric fence, I would have tried arguing that the objective technical problem was that the fence posts were getting broken because the cows stumble into the fence so often. Once a fence post is down, the cows just step over the no longer functioning electric fence. The solution was the stripes, which made the cows more leary of the fence, and less likely to stumble into it. As to T1567/05, the patent application was already refused, so easy for the TBA to confirm its refusal. As to T1446/04, I confess I don't yet see the justification to maintain the patent.MaxDreinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-32596094078750189002009-05-05T16:01:00.000+01:002009-05-05T16:01:00.000+01:00@MaxDrei:
T 12/08 is interesting. I might agree wi...@MaxDrei:<br />T 12/08 is interesting. I might agree with the Board that the idea of using time as an ingredient for a random generator is technical. (Unfortunately, this idea is also very well-known, but apparently not to the Board ;-).)<br /><br />As I understand it, the fact that the randomness was used for deciding when game characters appear was considered non-technical. The only technical aspect was the implementation of the random event generator.<br /><br />@Anonymous of 1:29PM:<br />It is debatable whether the effect in T 1121/02 was technical or not. Are the instincts of an animal technical? Maybe they are, maybe not. But now suppose the application claimed a shop window with certain features that can be shown to attract more customers. Now the effect is on the mind of the human, and for me there is no doubt that this effect is non-technical.<br /><br />Flashing lights undoubtedly are technical, but it is another question whether an alleged effect that flashing lights deter a particular animal is technical. If this effect is non-technical, the invention becomes a mere aggregation of a known fence and known flashing lights.<br /><br />Your example of the cinema is a bit different. The fact <I>that</I> the image is projected (and the way this is done) is certainly technical. However, <I>what</I> is projected (i.e. the content of the image) is completely immaterial from a technical point of view. A movie with certain story features that make the cinema attract more viewers should not get a patent.<br /><br />In my view, movie features that sexually arouse humans are non-technical. But the answer might be different for movie features that sexually arouse panda bears.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-53341473908980141862009-05-05T14:50:00.000+01:002009-05-05T14:50:00.000+01:00Thanks, Anonymous at 1.26 pm. I agree immediately...Thanks, Anonymous at 1.26 pm. I agree immediately that these "is it technical" Art 56 issues are substantive enough that they ought to have been discussed. But if the representative of the Opponent doesn't force them on the Board, and the Board (if it notices at all) perceives them to be on the margin, and lacks any appetite to tackle them on its own volition, then the default is that the patent survives, no?<br /><br />Do you know T0012/08 from 3.2.08, on game rules and what is technical. I was wondering whether it is "technical", or a Rule of the game, that the chance of encountering a game character that is a nocturnal animal (say, a fox) is greater at night.MaxDreinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-5012907675000316492009-05-05T14:25:00.000+01:002009-05-05T14:25:00.000+01:00"... works because..." just to continue
Compressi..."... works because..." just to continue<br /><br />Compression algorithm applied to increase memory (disk) storage capacity may be considered here as patentable. It affects way how device working and enhances its capabilities.<br />However it does not exclude using the same compression algorithm in other data processing technique (so for the other purpose than storing smaller amount of data on disk) like sound wave visualisation. <br />IMHO using compression algorithm in conjunction with drive to increase store of drive may be patentable as "inventive device to store more data of some kind". It is the same as cache algorithm that may speed up disk access.<br /><br />To be honest invention as above can be easily circumvent simply by using other algorithm or simply use none. Therefore IMHO examiners should take care about reciving detailed description of logic deciding about inventive way of device working. Generalizations not disclosing method of compression in detail should be always rejected because they do not present solution.<br /><br />So IMHO in the practice as I understand it and in the context for example of storage devices some disk access algorithms, compression algorithms could be patentable if it will be proven that disk will run faster or its capacity will increase. <br />So IMHO by implementing new kind of data sorting algorithm you do not have invention because you do not cause that processor or memory runs in improved way (as devices) even if you solve your bussines problem faster because of lower sorting algorithm complexity. However when you develop scheduling algorithm for processor scheduling streams of instructions then you may change a performance of processor for the set of tasks so you affecting processor performance in ordered and aimed way. So for me it seems that patentable are only algorithms having aimed influence on computer part(s) capabilities (if the impact is innovative in the sense than device would get some new capability not previously descibed in device manual like can store sound data in better way).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-67324084646065986072009-05-05T13:29:00.000+01:002009-05-05T13:29:00.000+01:00I consider the test "happens in the human mind" co...I consider the test "happens in the human mind" completely irrelevant for assessing the technicality of an invention. <br /><br />If I remeber correctly, this line was put forward eg in decision T 1121/02 (that case concerned a fence on which lines were drawn that induced fear in animals so that they stayed away from the fence. I think that the marks were black and yellow, similar to the tail of a bee, and that cows reacted on these signals). The board refused the application on the ground that the only "technical feature" was a painted fence and equated this to a fence on which the words "no trespassing" were drawn.<br /><br />I doubt however that anybody would find a chemical shark repellent non technical, although no one knows why exactly the sharks stay away (the same is true for an ultrasonic mole repellent). I doubt that the board's decision would have been the same if the fence had flashing lights on it which made the animals stay away (or would this also be considered non technical?).<br />There are several inventions which rely on an effect in the mind of the observer (the cinema for example) and nobody ever considered them to be non technical.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-26591372274191136712009-05-05T13:26:00.000+01:002009-05-05T13:26:00.000+01:00@Anonymous of 12:51AM
"Mp3 works because it is bas...@Anonymous of 12:51AM<br />"Mp3 works because it is based on a model of the human ear... anyway seems technical to me.<br /><br />Then you could also patent Newton law: F=m*a<br />It bases on mathematical model of physical object (any)."<br /><br />You must be aware that many patents are based on "forces of nature", such as the one described by Newton's law. The principle that makes a balance scale work is technical, right? Is the idea of throwing out frequencies that the human ear can't hear technical? (Don't confuse with novelty or inventive step.) Does it then matter if you implement this in hardware or software?<br /><br />If you mean that a claim to mp3 should only be patentable if it includes a step of recording or reproducing the actual sound, then fine with me. Such a step might be necessary to actually achieve the technical effect in combination with the mathematical model. (However, I tend to think that a limitation to processing of sound data should suffice.)<br /><br />@MaxDrei:<br />See e.g. T 1567/05, point 3.5:<br />"Although relating to technical phenomena, the stress values are mere pieces of information aimed exclusively at the human mind. It follows that also the features determining the kind of information displayed do not contribute to an inventive step."<br />and see point 3.4 and its reference to T 119/88, maybe even more relevant when comparing to T 1446/04. I would therefore at least have expected some discussion; it shouldn't be the case that issues that brake or make a 3.5.01-case go completely unmentioned in a 3.5.04-case. Maybe the Board did not feel obliged to go into this point because of the nature of the opposition procedure, I don't know.<br /><br />Of course the "effect" of mp3 is in a way also on the human mind (or ear?). Mp3 distorts sound, but in a way that humans don't notice (too much).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-21601926016389744452009-05-05T12:21:00.000+01:002009-05-05T12:21:00.000+01:00Sorry, that last anonymous, at 11.38 hr. Am I mis...Sorry, that last anonymous, at 11.38 hr. Am I missing the point here. I had not realised that "effects on the human mind" and "a technical way to solve an objective technical problem" are mutually exclusive. Haven't read the case yet, but meanwhile, are there any other readers who are satisfied that the treatment of Art 56 in T1446/04 is inconsistent with the progressively sharpening line of TBA Art 56 jurisprudence?MaxDreinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-9884254398982932802009-05-05T11:38:00.000+01:002009-05-05T11:38:00.000+01:00The border will never become clear cut. But the nu...The border will never become clear cut. But the number of border cases should become less. For example, business method claims can hardly be called border cases anymore.<br /><br />However, it would help if the various Boards start to draw one line. A decision like T 1446/04 appears to me to completely contradict the line of Board 3.5.01 that effects on the human mind are non-technical. Why was the issue of technicality of "eine bessere und schnellere Erkennbarkeit" not even mentioned?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-17764190393356893622009-05-05T11:03:00.000+01:002009-05-05T11:03:00.000+01:00In a different context admittedly, one of the lear...In a different context admittedly, one of the learned patents judges (Robin Jacob, I suspect) said something about a "puzzle at the margin" being insufficient as a basis to find a particular claim invalid. I think that assessment serves just as well, as a response to the criticism of the evolving EPO jurisprudence on CII subject matter generally.MaxDreinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-88940568033280273682009-05-05T08:18:00.000+01:002009-05-05T08:18:00.000+01:00Unfortunately I don't believe that in the field of...Unfortunately I don't believe that in the field of CII the border between what is patentable and what is not will become clear cut in the future. It seems to me that the dividing line is fractal like, so the closer you look at the border the more details you recognize. For this reason, I don't think that the EBoA can help in clarifying this fundamental issue and I believe that the referral will be dismissed as inadmissible, inter alia because there are no diverging decisions but only an evolving approach, completely normal in such a difficult field.<br /><br />The situation is particularly difficult for patent examiners having to decide whether granting or not a patent in short time. But there are no clear cut rules that are simple to apply and I doubt there will ever be.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-86136254303034409822009-05-05T00:51:00.000+01:002009-05-05T00:51:00.000+01:00@Anonymous of 10:28PM
"Claims almost never can dis...@Anonymous of 10:28PM<br />"Claims almost never can disclose algorithm because they are to general in formulation. If you would like to patent engine and you would not describe how its magnets works in detail then would you deserve on patent? (just you would write "magnets that rotate rotor" and thats all - something like this is happen when you try to describe complex software in a few claims - have you disclosed invention?)"<br /><br />The <B>claims</B> define the scope of protection. The <B>application</B> (description, drawings) must disclose the claimed invention in a way that enables the skilled person to carry it out (Art. 83 EPC).<br /><br />So the EPC already prohibits the grant of a patent for an invention that has not been disclosed. However, this is not a requirement of the claims, but of the application (mainly the description).<br /><br />To be more precise, the requirement also has an effect on the claims. The claims should not claim more than what is made available to the public. "The patent monopoly should be justified by the technical contribution to the art", T 409/91.<br /><br />"The music of course may be 'inventive' in this (artistic) way but until now nobody want to patent scores combinations."<br /><br />The same is true for software. Software only contributes to inventive step to the extent that it implements a technical principle. The EPO case law does not allow patents on pure data processing that does not somehow solve a technical problem in a technical way. Those that attempt to patent musical scores will be asked to convincingly explain what technical effects are achieved. There is no difference in approach.<br /><br />"The point is that data processing part (equations, math) is not patentable if it does not work in conjunction with steering mechanism in novel inventive way so to achive novel inventive technical effect."<br /><br />Exactly! And you're correct that it is not easy to draw the line, but that's life... As case law stabilises more and more cases will become clear cut.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-72495201485523939732009-05-05T00:01:00.000+01:002009-05-05T00:01:00.000+01:00Mp3 works because it is based on a model of the hu...Mp3 works because it is based on a model of the human ear... anyway seems technical to me.<br /><br />Then you could also patent Newton law: F=m*a<br />It bases on mathematical model of physical object (any).<br />The same would be true for Einstein General Theory of Relativity which calculates forces in space time curvature and all the rest of models in physics. All these mathematical models examples of physical objects seems to me also very technical and related to real life. But nobody did it. Why? IMHO becuase mathematical model of physical object is not the same as physical object itself. It is pure math, data processing + abstract model not invention.<br />IMHO, the difference between invention and data processing is if device containing implemented algorithm does something more than producing pure information. This is especially for computer that has been designed as general computing device - this idea 'as such' has been patented probably on 50's of the past century. So by mere executing program you use existing from years invention.<br />In my opinion the value that brings mp3 is in new method of a sound wave (information) presentation. However it has not direct impact on computer disk or sound card way of working. Software that play mp3 simply uses abstract disk and sound card I/O to get data process it and send data to sound card. It does not change a way how these devices in computer works. It is data processing technique like calculation of derivatives however more complex (but it is going about nature not complexity) so simple computer usage here. If such algorithm would change a way how disk or sound card works then IMHO it would be invention. For example if you using software would convert you printer into a toaster. It would be new CII.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com