tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post1072918532967908766..comments2023-10-24T14:45:41.342+02:00Comments on K’s Law: T 689/11 – Overstretchedorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07992102028406713066noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-3136085958864994842012-01-29T16:50:06.282+01:002012-01-29T16:50:06.282+01:00From the ED's decision:
"The purpose of t...From the ED's decision:<br />"The purpose of the application is of a business nature, namely, to pack products."<br /><br />Duh? By this reasoning *everything* that could make money is of a business nature and therefore excluded.<br /><br />(Of course things that cannot make money are not industrially applicable, Art. 57, so this approach considerably simplifies examination...)Myshkinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-19543962859485070442012-01-26T05:25:49.414+01:002012-01-26T05:25:49.414+01:00Cute kitten. But doesn't the IPKat own all rig...Cute kitten. But doesn't the IPKat own all rights for the use of felines in commenting IP decisions? ;-)<br /><br />As to the absence of a search, when I was an examiner I always strove to find and cite some document, no matter how severely flawed the application was. I couldn't have gotten the file past my hierarchical superior otherwise. I could still be as scathing as necessary in the written opinion, by concentrating on Art. 52(2), 53, 83, 84, etc. issues, leaving the assessment of novelty and IS to a later stage of the procedure if the applicant ever came back with somewhat more serviceable documents. (In PCT that meant: only point III of the opinion is filled).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com