tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post3984355460154053578..comments2023-10-24T14:45:41.342+02:00Comments on K’s Law: T 1027/08 – Measuring Well-beingorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07992102028406713066noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-47761008498723989592011-04-22T09:23:49.802+02:002011-04-22T09:23:49.802+02:00I would agree with Myshkin. There are, however, so...I would agree with Myshkin. There are, however, some exceptions. I plan to post on this matter soon.oliverhttp://k-slaw.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-54175237991887674472011-04-22T02:28:36.536+02:002011-04-22T02:28:36.536+02:00Well, the claimed device when manufactured can pro...Well, the claimed device when manufactured can probably be marketed ("patent pending"!) and sold, so I see no objection under Art. 57 EPC.<br /><br />When briefly looking at the claim, I don't see a clear reason why manufacturing the device would be problematic. Such a device seems at least suitable for "influencing" at least parts of a living being. I'm not sure that "therapeutically influencing" represents a restriction over "influencing". Refusing under Art. 83 EPC seems problematic to me.<br /><br />Turning to inventive step, the device seems to be more or less a juxtaposition of known parts, each part performing its normal function. The applicant claims a surprising synergistic effect in that it improves "well-being", but this effect is not acknowledged. So there is lack of inventive step.Myshkinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-87527284571005412352011-04-21T16:32:40.889+02:002011-04-21T16:32:40.889+02:00Hey, beware of bad karma! ;-)Hey, beware of bad karma! ;-)oliverhttp://k-slaw.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-47145247068470648972011-04-21T16:23:42.042+02:002011-04-21T16:23:42.042+02:00I would have addressed this "thing" on t...I would have addressed this "thing" on the basis of Articles 83 and 57. Using Art. 56 is intellectually much less satisfying, but at least this nonsense did not make it any further, unlike the Free World Trust v. Électro-Santé <i>infringement</i> case which made it all the way to the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_World_Trust_v._%C3%89lectro_Sant%C3%A9_Inc." rel="nofollow">Supreme Court of Canada</a> and became a landmark decision on claims interpretation. Sigh.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com