tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990057754240336385.post8476785959281285605..comments2024-02-27T09:18:36.160+01:00Comments on DeltaPatents Case Law blog: T 339/13 A technical effect of interaction with a virtual petDeltaPatentshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07830354704918972593noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990057754240336385.post-26860280681633189002016-02-11T10:04:02.985+01:002016-02-11T10:04:02.985+01:00This decision shows that Tamagochis and the like a...This decision shows that Tamagochis and the like are not dead!<br /><br />I have great sympathy with Sander’s comment. I thought that it is notorious that cats purr, and that most cats start purring when they are gently stroked. Making this a technical problem to be solved on a virtual cat when a cursor is moved back and forth might go a bit far. <br />The decision is however also interesting in another aspect. <br /><br />The applicant claimed that his right to be heard had not been respected. Documents D1 and D2 quoted in the annex to the summons before the OD are not the same as those quoted in the decision, was not considered a problem by the Board, as the passages of the text in the decision allowed to clearly identify the correct D1 in the decision.<br /> <br />That it is not clear which document D2 is meant in the decision seems more problematic. The BA has been very kind with the ED, when it held that this was a minor problem. In the minutes of the OP before the OD, there is no trace of D1, so why on earth has D2 to be in the decision? Should the BA have remitted to the ED in view of this problem, the file would probably have ended back at the BA in some time. By deciding through, the BA avoided this possibility.<br /><br />The BA has also made clear, once more, that an error in judgement, be it in the interpretation of the Guidelines is not a procedural defect, but a matter of substance. This confirms a long standing line of case law. <br /><br />Nevertheless, re-reading the decision, and to check the coherence of the data is not asking too much… On the other hand, production objectives have to be achieved… This might also be an explanation…..<br />Raoulnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990057754240336385.post-14617522851313326362016-02-08T11:48:03.011+01:002016-02-08T11:48:03.011+01:00The reasoning in R.18.3 struck me. This board acce...The reasoning in R.18.3 struck me. This board accepts ‘achieving the reliable and reproducible <em>perception</em> of a physical interaction with the real pet’ as technical problem which is sufficient to escape the article 52 (R.18.3). I’ve seen decisions on this forum in which the boards give little weight to the improved perception of a user, even it involves a lot research and technical means. For example, see the recommender of <a href="http://dp-patentlaw.blogspot.nl/2015/07/t-30610-recommender-systems-not.html" rel="nofollow">T 306/10</a> (‘From a technical point of view it is irrelevant what songs are recommended to a user.’) Sander van Rijnswouhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08074604101159694993noreply@blogger.com