Patent Related Information
http://www.epo.org/patents/updates/2009/20090508.html
On 21 April 2009, the Government of the Republic of San Marino (SM) deposited its instrument of accession to the European Patent Convention (EPC).
The EPC will accordingly enter into force for San Marino on 1 July 2009.
(San Marino has a population a third that of Slough.)
It may be interesting to note that the grant rate for EP patents fell below 50% last year:
http://www.epo.org/topics/news/2009/20090317.html
Apparently “the EPO’s announcement means that the allowance rate at each of the trilateral offices will be below 50% — with the EPO at 49.5%, the JPO at 48.9%, and the USPTO at 42%. Taken collectively, the average rate of allowance stands at 47.5%.”
There are also some interesting statistics on filing in different technical fields: electronics is up but biotech is down.
I was just reading through G01/05 (as you do) and thought I’d highlight the following example:
An application is filed with an independent claim to having an element A, and dependent claims to the combinations A+B and A+C. The application as filed also discloses the combination A+B+Z, but not the combination A+C+Z. The search produces a citation which takes away the novelty of the claim to element A by itself. The applicant files a divisional application. In case I, the amended parent application claims combinations A+B and A+B+Z, and the divisional application claims combinations A+C and A+C+Z. In case II, the amended parent application claims A+C and A+C+Z, while the divisional application claims A+B and A+B+Z.
The applications are otherwise identical. The only objection made in either case is that the dependent claim to A+C+Z extends beyond the subject-matter of the parent application as filed. The applicant has to admit that on careful reading only the combination A+B+Z but not that of A+C+Z was originally disclosed.
If this was an objection under Article 123(2) EPC in the parent application in case II, the applicant can cure the objection by deleting the offending claim to A+C+Z. The wording “may not be amended” in Article 123(2) EPC has never been interpreted as indicating that the first putting forward of such an amendment is a contravention leading to automatic rejection of the application. Rather the applicant has to be notified of the objectionable matter and afforded an opportunity to amend in an allowable manner.
If however the objection in case I that the combination A+C+Z was not originally disclosed in the earlier application is raised under Article 76(1) EPC to the divisional application, then unless the applicant is permitted to amend to remove the claim to A+C+Z the result is both arbitrary and unfair. In case I he would lose the divisional application and with it his claim to A+C. In case II, he would keep the parent application and the divisional application, and have claims both to A+B and A+C. The needs of legal security for third parties would obviously be adequately served by allowing the deletion of the offending claim to A+C+Z in case I. To reject the divisional application in its entirety is in the Board’s view disproportionate.
May be useful to those revising for the EQEs and those considering divisional applications.
Although US-based, the following Table of Patent Prowess, ranked by technical area, may be useful:
Case:
Claimed Subject Matter:
The purpose of the application is to simulate or model the performance of a circuit under the influence of a 1/f noise, i.e. a stochastic process with a frequency spectrum whose intensity is inversely proportional to a power beta of the frequency. The process describes the time dynamics of a physical variable, e.g. electric voltage.
The solution is based on the notion that 1/f noise can be simulated by feeding suitable random numbers into the circuit model. The application derives the numbers from a Gaussian stochastic process BFBM (fractional Brownian motion as a function of time) whose derivative is known to have a 1/f spectrum. The BFBM process and its derivative are characterised in particular by a covariance function and a covariance matrix.
The invention generates a covariance matrix which features the same simple elements as the covariance matrix (equation 2.7) of the derivative of the fractional Brownian motion. A triangular (Cholesky) decomposition of the generated covariance matrix is multiplied by a vector x of random numbers having a Gaussian distribution. Due to the design of the covariance matrix, the resultant random number sequence y forms a 1/f noise source.
Comments:
The board held that specific technical applications of computer-implemented simulation methods are themselves to be regarded as modern technical methods which can form an essential part of the fabrication process and precede actual production of a product. Such simulation methods cannot be denied a technical effect merely on the grounds that they do not yet incorporate the physical end product.
The take-away point is that if a simulation is clearly and specifically limited to a narrow technical field (and particular technical features within that field) it is more likely to be found to be technical it itself.
While the invention may be preceded by a mental or mathematical act, the claimed result must not be equated with this act. The present claims relate to a simulation method that cannot be performed by purely mental or mathematical means, not to the thought process that led to that simulation method.
Simulation performs technical functions typical of modern engineering work. It provides for realistic prediction of the performance of a designed circuit and thereby ideally allows it to be developed so accurately that a prototype’s chances of success can be assessed before it is built. The technical significance of this result increases with the speed of the simulation method, as this enables a wide range of designs to be virtually tested and examined for suitability before the expensive circuit fabrication process starts.
Without technical support, advance testing of a complex circuit and/or qualified selection from many designs would not be possible, or at least not in reasonable time. Thus computer-implemented simulation methods for virtual trials are a practical and practice-oriented part of the electrical engineer’s toolkit. What makes them so important is that as a rule there is no purely mathematical, theoretical or mental method that would provide complete and/or fast prediction of circuit performance under noise influences.
For example, specific technical applications of computer-implemented simulation methods are themselves to be regarded as modern technical methods which form an essential part of the fabrication process and precede actual production, mostly as an intermediate step. In view of this development it must be assumed that the outlay for implementing a technical product will increasingly shift to the numerical simulation phase, while final implementation of the simulation result in the actual manufacture of the product will entail no or only comparatively little extra innovation effort. In that light, such simulation methods cannot be denied a technical effect merely on the ground that they do not yet incorporate the physical end product.
A further fundamental change is to be found in the fact that development and production are increasingly separated, materially and geographically, in a globally distributed industry. In that light, too, the board considers specific patent protection to be appropriate for numerical development tools designed for a technical purpose.
IP Chimp 