tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990057754240336385.post4447691956568932117..comments2024-02-27T09:18:36.160+01:00Comments on DeltaPatents Case Law blog: G 1/19 - Computer-implemented simulation of a technical system or process that is claimed as such DeltaPatentshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07830354704918972593noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990057754240336385.post-83050415025560764282021-03-19T15:39:04.999+01:002021-03-19T15:39:04.999+01:00How would such rewriting actually work?
I think it...How would such rewriting actually work?<br />I think it is OK that the questions are slightly reformulated if the Enlarged Board considers that they are phrased too narrow or wrongly, while the intended question is directly and unambiguously clear from the referral itself, i.e., from the complete reasoning given by the referring Board.<br />But should not be allowable that the Enlarged Board changes the meaning of the referred questions so that they will answer a question that was not asked and not intended. Do you think that the latter happened?<br />Would the Enlarged Board discuss the rewording with the referring Board to make sure that the wording is indeed "just improved" and prevent that the meaning of the question is changed?<br /><br />The referred question in G 1/21 seems cut and clear, so there does not seem a need to rephrase that. On the other hand, the referring Board limited the questions to the right to OP in person under Art.116, and explicitly did not refer to the more general Art.113: there seems to be room for some reformulation?<br /><br />If the Enlarged Board would not consider the referral admissible in G 1/21, will the referring Board then need to decide themselves? And if so, are they bound by what they wrote in reasons 5-5.11 of the referral? <br /><br />https://dp-patentlaw.blogspot.com/2021/03/t-180715-referral-op-by-vico-compatible.htmlRoel van Woudenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15823355175016282250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990057754240336385.post-91149218133768530592021-03-19T15:24:43.411+01:002021-03-19T15:24:43.411+01:00I am puzzled too. As you say, puzzled whether the ...I am puzzled too. As you say, puzzled whether the referring Board now really gets the answer that they need... and puzzled how they will apply it and what they will conclude.<br />A pity that there is no clear position from the Enlarged Board with respect to the decisions that they mentioned, such as Infineon T 1227/05. When I read the decision, I first got the impression that they would support it, then somewhat further down in the reasons it seems that they disagreed, and then it seemed to turn to a cautious agreement "or at least not a disagreement". It seems that building a set of arguments about Infineon is not a strong anymore as it was before this decision, while it also does not give clear guidance as to how a simulation claim will be examined and what the effects are of various details in the drafting of the claim ("A method of simulating crowd movement...", "A method of simulatiom corridor load/capacity during crowd movement..", "A method of designing a building structure, the method comprising simulation of crowd movement through corridors to obtain information about required corridor dimensions", "A method of building a building stucture, the method comprising a step of designing the building structure, said step comprising simulation of ... through the building structure...").<br />Looking forward to the decision from the Technical Board! I hope that will clarify the situation and the future practice.Roel van Woudenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15823355175016282250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990057754240336385.post-43166223275186923552021-03-17T09:11:59.845+01:002021-03-17T09:11:59.845+01:00What is the effect of the decision on the underlyi...What is the effect of the decision on the underlying case? <br /><br />The decision is not giving very much guidance, does it? To me it is not even clear whether the Enlarged Board considers T 1227/05 to be correct or not: the reasons give hints into different directions, while T 1227/05 was even more "hard technology" than the referred case.<br /><br />Let's hope that the Technical Board gives a clear interpretation of this decision of the Enlarged Board, which will help us to understand what this decision!OpenEndnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990057754240336385.post-42681763661605815552021-03-14T15:29:08.836+01:002021-03-14T15:29:08.836+01:00I agree that it is doubtful that and how the Enlar...I agree that it is doubtful that and how the Enlarged Board has developed a habit of rephrasing the referred questions.<br /><br />Art.22 EPC provides that The Enlarged Board of Appeal shall be responsible for: <br />(a) deciding on points of law referred to it by Boards of Appeal under Article 112;<br />(b) giving opinions on points of law referred to it by the President of the European Patent Office under Article 112;<br />(c) deciding on petitions for review of decisions of the Boards of Appeal under Article 112a.<br /><br />The EPC does not give the Enlarged Board the power to phrase questions at their own motion.<br /><br />Are the Boards of Appeal doing so badly in phrasing their questions?<br />Is the Enlarged Board being influenced by others, such as the President of the EPO, the European Commission, and national and international politics?<br /><br />22&23(3)noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990057754240336385.post-34986174854938534822021-03-12T17:42:23.567+01:002021-03-12T17:42:23.567+01:00A lot will be said about G 1/19. One acquired fact...A lot will be said about G 1/19. One acquired fact is that the COMVIK approach can be used in such situations. At least it is a tangible result. <br /><br />The considerations about admissibility raised by the EBA are however as interesting as the reply to the admitted questions. <br /><br />Could the long introduction of the EBA on admissibility be a kind of warning that not any referral of a board will be admitted? <br /><br />I refer here to the distinction between questions of law and questions of fact (§ 57-58), and answers required for a decision on appeal (§ 59-61) as well as to the considerations relating to a “point of law of fundamental importance” (§ 63-64). <br /><br />I take from the decision that the economic importance of a small number of cases does not necessarily result in a point of law of fundamental importance.<br /><br />A pre-emptive referral might probably not be admitted in the future. Referrals should be reserved to situations where there is a clear divergence in case law. <br /><br />It seems also that the EBA has gone over to rewrite questions put to it. <br /><br />If it is only to make the question more understandable why not, but if it is to obtain a certain result in the reply, I find this quite dangerous. I refer here to a famous “dynamic” interpretation…<br /><br />If a question is not clear in the eyes of the EBA, then it should not be admitted. This applies to question 2A in the present referral. <br /><br />The EBA added that any question may remain unanswered to the extent it exceeds the real need for clarification, cf. § 68. <br /><br />My question is thus: has a referral of the type “G 1/21”, legal basis of OP by ViCo, a chance to be admitted?<br /><br />A comparable post has been published under my name on LinkedInDXThomasnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990057754240336385.post-14250210140428095802021-03-12T11:24:03.356+01:002021-03-12T11:24:03.356+01:00Thx, typo correctedThx, typo correctedRoel van Woudenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15823355175016282250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990057754240336385.post-80360648233478646432021-03-11T22:40:34.603+01:002021-03-11T22:40:34.603+01:00The label should probably be corrected from "...The label should probably be corrected from "Infineoi" to "Infineon", the applicant of T 1227/05.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com