tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post6448103062321955695..comments2024-03-28T13:23:33.281+00:00Comments on The IPKat: No traditional knowledge for hair loss treatment: another alleged attempt to patent traditional knowledge does not bear scrutinyVerónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-13703975568142399722015-08-06T05:09:51.201+01:002015-08-06T05:09:51.201+01:00My Anonymous friend @ 16:39, the meaning is more t...My Anonymous friend @ 16:39, the meaning is more than just the same on their face - hence what you advice is nothing more than a game of who can best spin the rhetoric.<br /><br />(we are already playing that game)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-16466510912410587002015-08-04T16:39:18.246+01:002015-08-04T16:39:18.246+01:00Taking Meldrew's point that the Examining Divi...Taking Meldrew's point that the Examining Division is supposed to comment explicitly on the relevance of the 3PO, how should we understand <i>"The third-party observation has been taken into account."</i>?<br /><br />It could mean simply "I considered it". In that case, it fails to meet the OJ requirement.<br /><br />Or it could mean "I took it into my thought process". And indeed, these might all come to the same thing, as Anon 12:08 argues. <br /><br />But this same thought process is what resulted in official objections to the patent application. Which opens the possibility to draw an inference: that the 3PO played a part in reaching the official objections.<br /><br />True, while that inference is possible, it does not inevitably follow from <i>"the third-party observation has been taken into account."</i> And it looks to be unfounded if you dig deep enough.<br /><br />But it is an inference that helps give the appearance of meeting the OJ requirement, which gives it a little credibility. And it is the inference that CSIR-TKDL is promoting strongly.<br /><br />So we have two phrases which on their face mean the same thing. One has a possible inference, that the Indian Government can exploit in propaganda about how awful Western patents are, and how effectively they are fighting them. The other doesn't. Which is the better phrase to use?<br /> Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-27769370349229457222015-08-04T13:57:43.794+01:002015-08-04T13:57:43.794+01:00And how does "The third-party observation has...And how does "<i>The third-party observation has been taken into account</i>" indicate the relevance or otherwise of the 3PO?<br /><br />Comments such as "<i>the examiner agrees with the 3PO...</i>" [sometimes seen] or "<i>the examiner considers the 3PO a load of tosh...</i>" [rarely seen] do explicitly indicate relevance.<br /><br />Simply indicating "<i>I have looked at the 3PO</i>" provides negligible informational value (except perhaps by inference), and certainly does not meet the stated aim in the OJ notice that:-<br />"<i>The EPO has also changed its practice to ensure that examining and opposition divisions comment <b>explicitly</b> on the relevance of third party observations</i>".Meldrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09841440718012449720noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-81377127353210170992015-08-04T12:54:44.660+01:002015-08-04T12:54:44.660+01:00Examiners may well want to 'consider' or &...Examiners may well want to 'consider' or 'take into account' TPO's, but they do not have much choice. OJ 2011 420 prescribes 'will be considered by the examining or opposition division, which will then comment on the relevance of the observations in the next substantive communication to the parties of the proceedings'<br /><br />They have to consider, and comment on the relevance. Nothing more, nothing lessAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-82337851354974254472015-08-04T12:51:00.325+01:002015-08-04T12:51:00.325+01:00People, let's remember that at the EPO what ma...People, let's remember that at the EPO what matters is what a string of words in English "mean" is what that string "means" to somebody whose knowledge of English is that of a foreign language. At the EPO we are in the Babelian world of Globish, Denglish and Franglais. It is not what "taken into account" or "considered" means to a native English speaker that counts. Rather, what matters is the meaning that these words convey to a German speaker.<br /><br />Thus, in the case of "Die sensible Dame mit dem braven Hund", nobody is saying that the dog is brave and nobody is saying that the lady is sensible, OK?MaxDreinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-82265693018700843022015-08-04T12:08:16.672+01:002015-08-04T12:08:16.672+01:00Overly pedantic semantics between "consider&q...Overly pedantic semantics between "consider" and "take into account."<br /><br />Seriously folks - these things carry the SAME connotation.<br /><br />Both of them mean that you have taken into your thought processes that which was offered for that purpose.<br /><br />If you start trying to "mince words" here, and even fall back to some sort of multilingual "excuse," what then? No matter what term you come up with in one language, you necessarily have to translate that term - and will ALWAYS have the "translation" excuse.<br /><br />As such, why even bother offering up that thought for consideration?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-66976803118985587672015-08-04T11:12:55.548+01:002015-08-04T11:12:55.548+01:00Monday's Anon here.
To Anon at 08:17 - To me ...Monday's Anon here.<br /><br />To Anon at 08:17 - To me "taken into account" suggests that the observations could have influenced the official objections - which they evidently didn't. "Considered" just confirms that the Examiner read them, but nothing more.<br /><br />To MaxDrei - I'm not convinced that examiners feel the need for plausible deniability. But even if they do, doesn't "taken into account" carry the same risk if the Examiner missed something?<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-61597228305830547152015-08-04T10:11:10.643+01:002015-08-04T10:11:10.643+01:00Readers pondering how the EPO alights on wordings ...Readers pondering how the EPO alights on wordings for standard sentences in English might bear in mind how very few English native speakers there are within the EPO. They might then share with me the suspicion that standard blocks of text are formulated and worked up, all in German. Later, the standard wording needs to be rendered into English, and the English words selected (here: "taken into account") are prompted by the original wording in German, which here might be something like "zur Kenntnis genommen". <br /><br />When the EPO writes to a party in German, what is the corresponding wording for the English "taken into account"?<br /><br />And is there a French speaker here? Does the French equivalent also use the word "take".<br /><br />Another reason for disfavouring "consider" might be a reticence for taking on more responsibility than necessary. Once you say you "considered" a document you are at risk if you missed something. But what if instead you choose to say that you only "took it into account"? Might you not feel that this form of words gives your Division more wiggle room and plausible deniability, in the event that your assessment of the document was flawed. Just a thought.MaxDreinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-946616027124424582015-08-04T08:17:27.354+01:002015-08-04T08:17:27.354+01:00To anon @ 13:57
What difference do you see between...To anon @ 13:57<br />What difference do you see between "The third-party observation has been taken into account" and "The third-party observation has been considered"?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-67417701875970583972015-08-03T13:57:57.035+01:002015-08-03T13:57:57.035+01:00"The third-party observation has been taken i...<i>"The third-party observation has been taken into account."</i><br /><br />This is a little ambiguous. Taken alone, you can see how an uninformed reader might suppose that the TKDL observations played a part in the Examiner's objections. It is only when you analyse the file in more detail that you realise they didn't.<br /><br />At one time, EPO examiners were free simply not to mention third party observations that did not assist their deliberations. No doubt this was frustrating for third party observers, who couldn't tell from the public file whether the Examiner had even read their observations. So more recently, I understand that Examiners have been told to make that clear.<br /><br />I'd guess that the ambiguous phrase <i>"the third-party observation has been taken into account"</i> is a template that Examiners have been told to follow. Perhaps it should be amended to something clearer?<br /><br />E.g. <i>"The third-party observation has been considered but does not give rise to an official objection"</i>?<br /><br />Or even just <i>"The third-party observation has been considered"</i>?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com