In reference to the patent: WO2015017898A1
Invalid patent. I built these back in 1996 and have papers to prove it. It's public domain.
2
-
Do you have digital copies or links to other documents that prove it's invalid that the users of AskPatents can investigate? Did you review all 21 claims and believe that your papers are prior art for all 21 claims? – Baronz Feb 27 '16 at 17:44
-
See patents.stackexchange.com/questions/593/… on the review procedure. – daniel Feb 28 '16 at 3:53
Add a comment
|
Well, it seems the Australian Patent Office as ISA recognized novelty and inventive step for all claims in the PCT phase. I find this pretty laughable seeing that claim 1 clearly defines a result to be achieved. It seems they have requested entry into European phase before the EPO. You can submit your own observations here: http://tpo.epo.org/tpo/app/form/
-
In Australian practice, claims-by-result are quite allowable (as long as they are properly supported in the description). And if the result is novel and inventive, then a claim-by-result would be accepted. – Maca Feb 29 '16 at 11:29
-
Not generally acceptable in the PCT phase according to PCT Guidelines 5.35, cf. wipo.int/export/sites/www/pct/en/texts/pdf/ispe.pdf: "As a general rule, claims which attempt to define the invention, or a feature thereof, by a result to be achieved should be objected to as lacking clarity." Somebody has not been doing their job... – Dr. Stephen Falken Mar 2 '16 at 22:34
