🔴 Inventor training workshop recording

I've already shared my slide deck, so today I want to share a recording from my in-house inventor training on "How to write the perfect invention disclosure for a software invention": https://youtu.be/t61Xr4Uvszc Is your patent department stuggling to get proper invention disclosures out of the developers? Then let’s talk about an inventor training. Reach out … Continue reading 🔴 Inventor training workshop recording

T 1422/19—Are indirect measurements technical? (one of the first applications of G1/19)

This is an examination appeal against the refusal of EP 2 976 719 "ESTIMATING VISIBILITY OF CONTENT ITEMS" by Google. I find this decision very interesting because it is one of the first to build upon G1/19. Specifically, it deals with the question which interactions are technical on the input side of a software invention. … Continue reading T 1422/19—Are indirect measurements technical? (one of the first applications of G1/19)

T 1141/17—Automatic selection of a marketing script

This is an examination appeal against the refusal of EP 1 774 463 "DYNAMIC BUSINESS METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR DIRECT MARKETING". The decision is a nice reminder of how the COMVIK approach for mixed-type invention works at the EPO. It confirms that the implementation of a non-technical method with conventional technology can't rescue the case. … Continue reading T 1141/17—Automatic selection of a marketing script

T 2764/19—Can an arbitrary difference be non-obvious?

This is an opposition appeal around EP 1 889 513 "COMMUNICATION SYSTEM FOR WIRELESS AUDIO DEVICES". The patentee is US-based Starkey Laboratories, Inc., one of the largest hearing aid manufacturers in the world and a very active patent filer. The board of appeal's decision dealt with a situation that often occurs in patent prosecution. Once … Continue reading T 2764/19—Can an arbitrary difference be non-obvious?

Patents for AI: much is at stake

I just noticed that my little video about AI patents and enablement is approaching 500 views since I uploaded it last Wednesday. That's exceeding my expectations by far, so: Thank you all so much for your likes, shares and comments on Youtube and LinkedIn!  Here's the video, in case you've missed it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjFmVlnENek That said, there's much … Continue reading Patents for AI: much is at stake

Patents for computer simulations?

In case you haven't seen it already on the BARDEHLE PAGENBERG newsfeeds, my colleague Patrick Heckeler and I had a short conversation about the pending referral G1/19 and the underlying question whether computer simulations should be patentable at the EPO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAkv4_H35iE I'm very much looking forward to the Enlarged Board's decision. In fact, this decision … Continue reading Patents for computer simulations?