tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post4433868888724217585..comments2024-03-28T16:45:51.051+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Patentability of user interface designs - Part 2 of 2: the German approach Verónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-47362012019450021782016-04-24T16:21:37.778+01:002016-04-24T16:21:37.778+01:00Not sure whether the difference is NOT completely ...Not sure whether the difference is NOT completely arbitrary as to "effect" caused by human conditioning (i.e. red means warning, yellow means caution) can be so easily dismissed from "physical causation" principles (yellow is used <b>in nature</b> as a warning - and there is NO (human) cognitive intrusion there).<br /><br />Further, at last in the US, the actual physical causation is NOT a prerequisite (product by process claims).<br /><br />This all just sounds like an attempt to curb patent rights that (again, at least in the US) are governed under the (really simple) two prongs of our 101:<br /><br />- Utility (for us, this is in the Useful Arts, a broader spectrum than your Technical Arts)<br /><br />- Category (a purposefully broad view of four categories, the invention must fit at least into one of them (and may fit into several).<br /><br />Everything else is just philosophical muckraking.THE US anonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-86108405044621737092016-04-22T12:57:39.922+01:002016-04-22T12:57:39.922+01:00Dear Mark, thank you for this excellent summary. I...Dear Mark, thank you for this excellent summary. I wonder if this puzzle can be put into a broader context as follows: The German landmark decision "Rote Taube" of 1976 defines technicality as the "purposeful use of natural forces to achieve a result with clear cause and effect". If you slightly generalize from "natural forces" to "natural law" or "laws of nature" this might encompass the "physiological characteristics of human perception and reception of information". Drawing the line between physiological and purely mental (or psychological?) characteristics of human cognition would immediately lead to the deeply philosophical question of the existence of a free will in a human brain entirely dominated by the laws of nature, which of course impossible to answer because in a definitive way.<br /><br />This line moves constantly forward due to scientific progress and, lucky enough, we do not need a philosopher or psychologist to decide on which side of the line we are: If the disclosure proves that, at the priority date of the invention, the inventor was able to understand and explain the laws of nature (including the physiological characteristics of perception) he uses to achieve a specific result, he is definitely on the "technical" side. Michael Thesenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11216937613426928728noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-67101015966993464762016-04-22T10:28:33.970+01:002016-04-22T10:28:33.970+01:00As an interesting deviation on when the EPO consid...As an interesting deviation on when the EPO consider (or don't) the effect on human perception there are two cases from the same board 3.5.04 (with two of the same members). In T979/06 the reduction of flicker in a video was deemed technical and in T 509/07 the aim of reducing flicker was non-technical. DrZnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-23493795548396171622016-04-21T21:50:23.072+01:002016-04-21T21:50:23.072+01:00The issue might best be exemplified by whether pre...The issue might best be exemplified by whether presenting something in a particular colour can make something inventive because certain user cohorts, e.g. colour blind persons, are also able to use a device. The fact that the choice of the colour of an anti-rust paint has no technical effect means that that feature cannot make paint inventive because it solves no problem in that paint. Where there is a plausible reason for the choice of colour, such that something about the way a user can interact with a device (or vice versa) is different, then the means "colour" is technical. I think there is an electric fence pattern (colour?) patented which relies on the effect of the device in use in view of the known special effect the pattern (colour) has on the target animal. <br /><br />Thus the argument as to "technicality of a feature" is not relevant, or not answerable a priori. The issue is: does the feature have an unavoidable effect, or it its effect entirely due to the interpretation of the information content of the feature when perceived; that is, the effect and problem being solved depend only on a mere base-less assumption that the/a person´s reaction is suitably altered due to their predelictions, and there is no necessary causative effect in the feature, then *that* problem is *not* causally solved by the feature. The famous "reformulation of the problem in a less ambitious manner" is then what kills the claim - as the objective technical problem, or series of unrelated partial objective technical problems, reduces to the mere provision of alternative/s expressly not legitimately motivated by any further/other consideration in view of the facts.<br /><br />Another example perhaps: Braille would have been patentable even though it is a "representation of information" par excellence, but not "as such". The same cannot be said for a claim directed to a particular choice of font/serif in embossed printing. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-10900761764695399252016-04-21T20:15:52.554+01:002016-04-21T20:15:52.554+01:00I have only read the summary of X ZR 37/13 present...I have only read the summary of X ZR 37/13 presented in the post, but the legal principle seems compatible with certain EPO decisions, such as the "information heralds" case T862/10; the proposition that physiological effects can be technical can be squared with the case law of the Boards of Appeal. However, I must also say that I don't see in the claims at issue in the BGH decision anything that is specifically linked to the physiological charcteristics of human perception (the claims cover just about any subset of images, no selection criterion is specified), so perhaps the divergence here is caused by claim interpretation rather than the legal approach to excluded subject - matter.L.B.Z.noreply@blogger.com