![]() |
| One method of performing a mental act, involving a cat (courtesy of the incomparable XKCD) |
Reviewed by David Brophy
on
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Rating:
![]() |
| One method of performing a mental act, involving a cat (courtesy of the incomparable XKCD) |
Reviewed by David Brophy
on
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Rating: 5
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
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?
ReplyDelete