tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post6986438279873535341..comments2024-03-18T17:10:35.838+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Wednesday whimsiesVerónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-88848796999129678432011-10-20T17:11:57.387+01:002011-10-20T17:11:57.387+01:00Looking at that Practice Note, it seems that the I...Looking at that Practice Note, it seems that the IPO is conflating the clarity requirement with the patentable subject matter requirement. Birss J was very clear, in paras 21 and 22 of the judgement, that claims could represent patentable subject matter even if they only implicitly, rather than clearly and explicitly, excluded de facto mental execution. Has the UKIPO just got it wrong, or is it sailing close to the wind until another appeal blows it back into the calm waters of reason?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com