Michael K. Edwards wrote: > On 7/21/05, Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The corresponding US patent US4750121 was allowed without any such > > problem. Claim 1 does not even recite "a computer", only several > > "means" that perform certain steps to a master trust. > > The US examiner was clearly not on the ball, and/or not properly > advised as to the significance of State Street.
US Patent class 705 is full of such patents where the examiner wasn't "on the ball". Only very recently have I seen US office actions where the examiner talks about "technological progress". > The PBS Partnership > patent would, I suspect, be tossed out if litigated in the US, > because there is not a reliable engineering relationship between the > process being followed and the desired outcome. It's a collection of > organizational tactics, which might represent an effective business > approach, but it's not an invention. My understanding was that this kind of patent was perfectly allowable under US law. There's a useful, concrete and tangible result, and you can't throw it out because it's a method of doing business. That's how "everyone" interpreted State Street Bank. > I have yet to see any evidence that persuades me that what is > patentable in the US in some application area is a strict superset of > what is patentable in Europe. It's not. They are two partially overlapping circles. The criteria to determine whether something is statutory are different in both regions. To a certain degree they give you the same outcome, but this is not necessarily true. Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch & European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
