IRC: #techbytes @ Techrights IRC Network: Sunday, February 18, 2024
4 AM, February 18
04:45 *Noisytoot has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s)
04:46 *Noisytoot (~noisytoot@tkbibjhmbkvb8.irc) has joined #techbytes
7 AM, February 18
07:00 *Guest9974 has quit (Z-lined)
8 AM, February 18
08:16 *SaphirJD (~SaphirJD@8xcwfwxvphczn.irc) has joined #techbytes
08:45 *parsifal (~parsifal@uuar9r28yasyu.irc) has joined #techbytes
noon, February 18
12:20 *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytes
12:22 *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytes
12:32 *psydroid2 (~psydroid@u8ftxtfux23wk.irc) has joined #techbytes
2 PM, February 18
14:50 *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytes
3 PM, February 18
15:20 schestowitz[TR2]; http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/02/board-of-appeal-proposes-substantially.html?showComment=1708194188194#c5657733492549046567
15:20 schestowitz[TR2]; ""
15:20 -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Board of Appeal proposes a substantially broader definition of "substance or composition" in second medical use claiming (T 1252/20) - The IPKat
15:20 schestowitz[TR2]; "'Electro-convulsive shocks for the therapy of ...</a></h5><blockquote>'Electro-convulsive shocks for the therapy of mental disorders' is clearly a method of treatment, so not patentable. The device used for producing the shocks is clearly a device. Define it as a composition using the molecular structure of its components without referring to structure/shape, and I'll give you a patent monopoly myself."
15:20 schestowitz[TR2]; http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/02/board-of-appeal-proposes-substantially.html?showComment=1708183345106#c6512015673161777448
15:20 schestowitz[TR2]; "In the past I have written and filed an application on the use of (a specific form of) electric stimulation for providing therapeutic effects. Although the application was withdrawn because the applicant lost interest, it would have been interesting to have the discussion on a first or second medical use in respect of this technology. I would guess that on basis of what the board now has said in T 1252/20 and on basis of the comme
15:20 schestowitz[TR2]; nts of Daniele Thomas, this claim could have been successful. <br />What would you think: would nowadays a claim such as 'Electro-convulsive shocks for the therapy of mental disorders' be patentable (of course when novel and inventive)?'
15:20 -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | Board of Appeal proposes a substantially broader definition of "substance or composition" in second medical use claiming (T 1252/20) - The IPKat
6 PM, February 18
18:00 *parsifal has quit (Quit: Leaving)
9 PM, February 18
21:56 *psydroid2 has quit (Quit: KVIrc 5.0.0 Aria http://www.kvirc.net/)