<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<!-- generator="FeedCreator 1.7.2" -->
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title>Blog Posts tagged 'claims'</title>
		<description>Blog Posts tagged 'claims'</description>
		<link>http://www.relatip.com</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:58:15 +0100</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>FeedCreator 1.7.2</generator>
		<item>
			<title>The Beginning of the End? USPTO vs. Software patents</title>
			<link>http://www.relatip.com/component/option,com_myblog/show,The-Beginning-of-the-End-USPTO-vs.-Software-patents.html/Itemid,59/</link>
			<description>  &lt;p style=&quot;text-align: left; direction: ltr; unicode-bidi: embed&quot; dir=&quot;ltr&quot; class=&quot;MsoNormal&quot;&gt;Prof. John F. Duffy analyses at Patently-O  the probable position of the USPTO towards software patents as presented in a series of cases. Specifically, patentable subject matter must result in a physical transformation of an article that is tied to a particular machine. A general purpose computer may probably not be regarded as a particular machine, and data structures and numbers (e.g. webpage rankin [...]</description>
			<author>ophir@patentim.com</author>
			<pubDate>Tue, 22 Jul 2008 03:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
		<category>USPTO</category>
 <category>software patent</category>
 <category>Software</category>
 <category>politics</category>
 <category>Patents Opposition</category>
 <category>Patents</category>
 <category>Patently-O</category>
 <category>Patentability</category>
 <category>Patent Prosecution</category>
 <category>Patent Legislation</category>
 <category>patent</category>
 <category>Internet Patent</category>
 <category>intellectual property</category>
 <category>cyberlaw</category>
 <category>Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit</category>
 <category>COMPUTER CONTROLLED SOFTWARE INTEGRATED INVENTIONS</category>
 <category>claims</category>
 <category>CAFC</category>
 <category>blogging</category>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Warning: significant increase in claim fees and annuities at EPO per 1 April 2008</title>
			<link>http://www.relatip.com/component/option,com_myblog/show,Warning-significant-increase-in-claim-fees-and-annuities-at-EPO-per-1-April-2008.html/Itemid,59/</link>
			<description>&lt;p&gt;Hmm.. need a break&amp;nbsp;in the trademark-related entries from our US colleague at Cantor Colburn?&amp;nbsp; ;-)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;As usual the EPO has a new schedule of fees ready for 1 April with most fees being raised by&amp;nbsp;5% or other like fair amounts.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Beware of the new claim fees and annual maintenance fees, however !!&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;As you know, the EPO charges a fee, currently 45 EUR, for each claim above 10 claims. Starting from 1 April 2008, this is changed to a fee of 200 EUR for each claim above 15 [...]</description>
			<author>jep@patentgruppen.com</author>
			<pubDate>Tue, 19 Feb 2008 11:46:53 +0100</pubDate>
		<category>Patents</category>
 <category>Maintenance Fees</category>
 <category>Fees</category>
 <category>Europe</category>
 <category>EPO</category>
 <category>claims</category>
 <category>Annuities</category>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Computer Program Related Claims - Allowed in the UK?</title>
			<link>http://www.relatip.com/component/option,com_myblog/show,Computer-Program-Related-Claims---Allowed-in-the-UK-.html/Itemid,59/</link>
			<description>&lt;p dir=&quot;ltr&quot;&gt;In a&amp;nbsp;RelatIP recent post I have reported the new approach of the UK intellectual property office (UK-IPO) regarding computer programing related claims [&lt;u&gt;Last Post&lt;/u&gt;] stating that the UK-IPO tends towards allowing these claims drafting in UK applications. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p dir=&quot;ltr&quot;&gt;In a recent judgment in Astron Clinica and other&amp;#39;s Applications [2008] (&amp;quot;Astron Clinica&amp;quot;) [&lt;u&gt;UK-IPO&lt;/u&gt;], the court has decided that claims to a method performed by running a suitably program [...]</description>
			<author>mshalem@gmail.com</author>
			<pubDate>Mon, 11 Feb 2008 14:05:09 +0100</pubDate>
		<category>United Kingdom</category>
 <category>claims</category>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>10 IP related blog posts of the week</title>
			<link>http://www.relatip.com/component/option,com_myblog/show,10-IP-related-blog-posts-of-the-week.html/Itemid,59/</link>
			<description>  &lt;p style=&quot;text-align: left; direction: ltr; unicode-bidi: embed&quot; class=&quot;MsoNormal&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;  &lt;p style=&quot;text-align: left; direction: ltr; unicode-bidi: embed&quot; class=&quot;MsoNormal&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;  &lt;p class=&quot;MsoNormal&quot;&gt;I&amp;#39;d like to share 10 IP related blog posts that caught my eye in the previous week.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;MsoNormal&quot;&gt;&lt;u&gt;Patents&lt;/u&gt;  &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p style=&quot;text-align: left; direction: ltr; unicode-bidi: embed&quot; class=&quot;MsoNormal&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;    &lt;p style=&quot;text-align: justify; direction: ltr; unicode-bid [...]</description>
			<author>amit@patentim.com</author>
			<pubDate>Mon, 21 Jan 2008 15:10:32 +0100</pubDate>
		<category>USPTO</category>
 <category>United States</category>
 <category>United Kingdom</category>
 <category>UK-IPO</category>
 <category>TTab</category>
 <category>Trademarks</category>
 <category>trademark</category>
 <category>private copying</category>
 <category>Patent Legislation</category>
 <category>Inventors</category>
 <category>indefinite articles</category>
 <category>ICANN</category>
 <category>Domain names</category>
 <category>domain name tasting</category>
 <category>defences</category>
 <category>cyberlaw</category>
 <category>Copyright defences</category>
 <category>copyright</category>
 <category>consultation</category>
 <category>claims</category>
 <category>blogging</category>
 <category>Australia</category>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>