Reviewed by Mark Schweizer
on
Friday, February 18, 2011
Rating:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html
Posts
Comments
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] Thou shalt not discriminate the Lego block over any other kind of product – GRUR speaks out on C-211/24](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWJYQUJNvYydrZcjwSHPuxd14xX3_48aBusHKBogY-Wg1BPSJSABbFFjmGiUV3aqG2npP9xYaIl1vtWK5AsqGOQPgRD2TWFLhyyc4xGm1fHDD-tt9kHcrSSgAyju2P9wSKz0VW6h7D5MD4Hxd9vREyxKYzlMRNXxxtxc3DiNsXppfVaxgSxAMV/s72-c/21742619125_7c9e53cd39_o.png)
![[Guest post] Comparison of wine and gin: the EUIPO’s unquestionable Similarity Tool](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNfTEBXiPVS0XjZi4mNE1OtXLxXiEp1PUgcUK7MMMXlfyTkO5SMXv-VCMXXNdS_F1XdMMxYca1VbBTGvvDeTVpo5x-5YwR7atQJmK3x32T8LACpf4308kht3nEtaxPwEPcGGrB0s5xjGktmQPOiVwPVLRO5JbW19qupc7xUtiVutvaWHow0OpBkA/s72-c/Picture%201.jpg)
![[Guest post] Muddying the waters of copyright – a rapid reaction to today’s IPEC decision which sees the sinking of the WaterRower’s claims for copyright protection](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7chFANC7ppmZl4_nlR6_hZEcg6cOhVEJNVXqki4p82BoVlcLFotuOXzHWYD5lKLiiK_kRoWeXmJjjaV2DpoKsAWq8U3LFioO5W_841a9gcfDIFjvZWcGqfnr0jWJNtyXptIYR_8bxCssaDkJ9KMokuSqy1g65Il7p2hPwo4MfRCEGoUPQJesvbg/s72-w400-c-h189/Screenshot%202024-11-11%20at%2018.20.45.png)
EP application number 08743230.0 is even more intriging. It claims: A topical composition comprising an effective amount of sacred or holy water, non-holy water, and natural products.
ReplyDeleteGordon Ramsay mode ON
ReplyDeleteNow, figs in. Stir. And you've got yourself some beautiful...interpreted...claims. Lovely.
OFF
FYI - The holy water application is 08743130.0
ReplyDeleteNo holy water in 08743230.8. Given the incorrect check digit, I suspect a typo has been made. Care to try again?
ReplyDeleteQ. How do you make holy water?
ReplyDeleteA. Boil the hell out of it.
Can someone please help? I'm embarrassed to say this but I can't tell the difference. Do I have a problem with my screen resolution?
ReplyDeleteI just checked out 08743130.0 mentioned above: "1. A topical composition comprising an effective amount of sacred or holy water and non-holy water".
ReplyDeleteSheesh! I honestly thought I had seen it all...
The examiner gave it the works, he could nevertheless still make a reference to Article 57 EPC, the other hammer besides Article 83 against such nonsense.
Should probably be classified together with magnetic homeopathic water "programming" and magnetic "descaling", even though for once there are no magnets.
I did once see a published patent application where the abstract figure consisted of two adjacent rectangles labelled "Fig 1" and "Fig 2": evidently the applicant had unintentionally specified the fig that showed how the figs were to be juxtaposed.
ReplyDeleteWell, well, well...
ReplyDeleteThe European patent attorney in the holy water application sure is not giving up. After an amendment the response to the communication states "I respectfully submit the claims are now in order for grant."
Oh, and I see Oral Proceedings are requested as a safeguard, what could possibly go wrong?
The Source: the comments go on a bit but no one seems to realise that figs grow as male and female trees. The males never produce any fruit but the females, in a good climate, produce two crops a year.
ReplyDeleteI just had a look at the file wrapper for 08743130.0. It has high comedic value. The Examiner is clearly enjoying himself…
ReplyDeleteI, in my own name and that of every single deity, and everyone and everything, hereby declare all water in the world, including that contained in the streams, lakes, oceans, clouds, human and animal bodies, plants, wells, snow globes, lava lamps, hydrate compounds, bottles, tanks, swimming pools, pipes, as well as that in the known and unknown universe, including interstellar water, or made from all isotope combinations of hydrogen and oxygen, to be sacred and holy.
ReplyDeleteNow each and every one is infringing the claim. Great.
ReplyDeleteThe European patent attorney in the holy water application sure is not giving up. After an amendment the response to the communication states "I respectfully submit the claims are now in order for grant."
Just doing her job. She's probably just forwarding the US attorney's arguments, anyway. "Respectfully submit" is typically American patent-speak.
Oh, and I see Oral Proceedings are requested as a safeguard, what could possibly go wrong?
Again, just doing her job. Without that request, the Examiner could (and, in this case, almost certainly would!) directly reject the application. What's probably going to happen is that the Examiner will summon the applicant to Oral Proceedings, the European patent attorney will present her cost estimate for preparing and attending the OP, and the applicant will drop the application...
Other telltale signs of a representative channeling an US-counterpart are the use of the expressions "traverse" or "rejection", or US-style document references, e.g., "the '123 patent", or "Blotz teaches", instead of "D17 discloses". Not to mention the filing of US-style amendments.
ReplyDeleteThe examiner can also silently let the file rot in a corner until the applicant grows tired of paying annual renewal fees, usually by year 6 or 7 when they reach 4-digit levels, or clamors for immediate action, or finally gets the point from another office such as the USPTO. There are more than enough serious applications that await urgent consideration (first filings, PCT, etc.).
Just doing her job. She's probably just forwarding the US attorney's arguments, anyway. "Respectfully submit" is typically American patent-speak.
ReplyDeleteOh I don't doubt she is doing her job. Hopefully she has indicated that a technical effect is lacking but that client correspondance we will never see. Still, stating the claims are in order for grant is perhaps showing more optimism than I would have done.
As for "respectfully submit", I have used that too and seen many others do so too. What is your preferreed phrase?
Again, just doing her job. Without that request, the Examiner could (and, in this case, almost certainly would!) directly reject the application.
I know, I thought my "what could possibly go wrong" was a clear indication of humour.
An yes, the application is probably going to sink, in water of questionale holiness. But not before generating more amusement.
Great line from the US final office action...
ReplyDelete"Clearly, it is an unquestionable well-known fact that water, being essential for existence, has been present on this planet for ages (well before one year prior to the filing of this Patent Application)."
As for "respectfully submit", I have used that too and seen many others do so too. What is your preferred phrase?
ReplyDeleteI am of the opinion that simply writing "We submit that..." suffices wholly, as the word "respectfully" adds nothing of substance. The expression reminds me somewhat of Joschka Fischer's famous quip: "With your permission, Mr. President, you are an [...]". Please understand that I did get the occasional politely introduced snide or insulting comment, such as "if the examiner was skilled in the art", so I'm not too sensitive about formulations. I also heartily chuckled at a reply from a French applicant flatteringly addressed to "Monsieur le Directeur". A German once called me "Herr Doktor", but I'd be really careful with the latter one, as that currency is currently very severely devalued.
This discussion is probably going in many odd directions now but to me this is interesting.
ReplyDeleteI am of the opinion that simply writing "We submit that..." suffices wholly, as the word "respectfully" adds nothing of substance.
Well, I prefer to err on the side of safety and politelyness. So far I have had to duke it out with an Examiner only once over a massive violation of rules and guidelines. Having read many documents in EP applications I think most prefer the overly polite approach. And "Examiner" remains capitalised.
That of course does not stop the occational dry comments, after all this is a line of work where wit and writing skills are essential, and www.usptoexaminers.com has some brilliant examples. A corresponding www.europeanexaminers.com would no doubt satisfy a long felt need.
As for the the devalued link, that did not open properly in my browser.
Sorry for the broken link to the debased currency. I was alluding to the future-former-Dr.
ReplyDeleteGuttenberg affair.
The leading Bavarian minister in the German federal government was found to have plagiarised large portions of his doctoral dissertation in law from a large number of sources.
When the first news about this came out hardly a week ago in a somewhat anonymous scholarly book review, the above linked collaborative web site was set up to tally up the, er, borrowed material. At last count (the bar code-like graphic on the home page) nearly 73% of the pages in the text body contain at least some uncredited third-party material, or about 22% of the editorial content, and we're just talking here about material which can be found on the internet with a search engine. The astounding thing is that just 7 days ago this site which took of like a rocket simply did not exist.
The material reproduced would also include four different reports which had been ordered from the parliamentary research services. These analyses are normally destined for internal legislative use. Many newspaper articles were included in slightly edited form. Even an undergraduate student assignment in political science found a place in the thesis!!! More astoundingly, the *foreword* of the thesis was largely "inspired" by an article published in the Frankfurter Allgemeine, which can be found online within seconds.
This work was stamped "summa cum laude" by the examining committee. The Zurich newspaper whose publication had been "borrowed" launched at once an ad campaign which reads "NZZ: summa cum laude - Bayreuth University"
The young, rich, blue-blooded, and articulate minister was not only a walking advertisement for Brylcream, but also the rising star of the conservatives. He had been whipped up for the last few years as some sort of infallible Übermensch, not least by his friends in the tabloid press.
Nowadays he goes by a variety of newly earned unflattering nicknames, such as "Lügenbaron von Googleberg"; the first name referring to the "Liar Baron von Münchausen".
This is still an unraveling story, with probable wide ranging political consequences. The IP angle is not to be neglected either, he might have a bit of explaining to do to the various copyright holders...