tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post950628363256185257..comments2024-03-29T13:59:42.629+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Wednesday whimsiesVerónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-53859547338679149822010-11-26T11:16:12.506+00:002010-11-26T11:16:12.506+00:00Jeremy,
That sounds fair. A very specialised form...Jeremy,<br /><br />That sounds fair. A very specialised form of sabotage on someone's behalf, then!<br /><br />Still, I couldn't help but agree with the alleged judgment given.Davenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-71154737224739397632010-11-26T04:00:58.945+00:002010-11-26T04:00:58.945+00:00Thank you, Anon @ Wednesday, November 24, 2010 12:...Thank you, Anon @ Wednesday, November 24, 2010 12:43:00 PM. Your response is very helpful. I had the question in my mind for soemtime. Thank you, once again.Aaradhananoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-90659663130256867242010-11-25T14:39:23.568+00:002010-11-25T14:39:23.568+00:00Dave -- I took the story down once it became appar...Dave -- I took the story down once it became apparent that there was a very high likelihood that it was a prank perpetrated against the person in whose name it was sent. I'm happy to run stories and publish opinions, but not to see people embarrassed and their careers possibly damaged by what, prima facie, looks like malicious third party activity. If the person who sent me the story cares to contact me and explain (i) who he or she is and (ii) why I was sent the story, I'll be grateful -- if it can be shown to be bona fide I'll reinstate it.Jeremyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01123244020588707776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-55469275051047879302010-11-25T14:02:29.053+00:002010-11-25T14:02:29.053+00:00Didn't there used to be a story on here about ...Didn't there used to be a story on here about the OHIM Admin Board election results?<br /><br />Press freedom?Davenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-37435076220716878782010-11-24T12:43:23.358+00:002010-11-24T12:43:23.358+00:00Why novelty first? The trouble is that claims do n...Why novelty first? The trouble is that claims do not state the inventive step, but rather define something which has the inventive step. Once a claim is drafted there can be errors in reflecting the inventive step (even a well drafted one may pop up surprises in parts of its range) and also there may be differences of understanding and even representation (ever seen an inventive step argument that is plainly nothing to do with the claim?). Novelty provides a check. First there is the process of trying to work out what the inventive step of the claim actually is, where the first step (in the problem and solution approach but it is also probably a ncessisty of a step) is to work out the difference between the claim and the prior art from which the the inventive step can be judged. However if there is no difference there can in strict logical be no inventive step. The examiner or third party can therefore say quite clearly that the claim is wrong, lacking novelty, and send the applicant back for a rethink. Assuming the examiner is right that is hard to argue with. <br /><br />Examiner's do of course sometimes say I can see you have an inventive step here but you have claimed it wrong since your claim clearly reads onto D1. While that is helpful in many cases because it points the way forward it does not always work out as the examiner expects since he must be imagining a claim that has that inventive step and the applicant may have another idea.<br /><br />So yes we could sometimes proceed a bit quicker if inventive step as well as just raw novelty were always considered but not doing novelty would simply mean that the ground being argued over is not defined.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com