From: Wootton, Charles: #CIPO - OPIC

Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 10:44 To: Riel, Louis-Pierre: #CIPO - OPIC

Subject: RE: Ébauches de chapitre du RPBB - MOPOP Chapters drafts Chpr 12-16

I did a quick read,

I noticed on page 6(WP Doc.) that there

seemed to be something of a conclusive nature missing.

..............................

If the method is not any of the above, then one must determine if the method produces an essentially

economic result in relation to trade, etc. by asking whether it is closer to:

a) a service (or a transaction/exchange between multiple entities) for which someone (e.g.
a professional) would be hired to perform (or which the method's executor would

perform for themselves); such methods do not produce an essentially economic result in relation to trade, etc.,

or

a) a method for producing/building/constructing a vendible product, or of altering something to make a vendible product that is functionally (as opposed to, e.g.

intellectually or aesthetically) different from any vendible product that it may have been originally; such methods do produce an essentially economic result in relation to trade,

etc.

In this context, the term "vendible product" is broad enough to encompass land, structures, parts of structures, chemicals, etc.

.....................................

I was expecting a sentence such as,

In (a) (first instance) a service is not patentable because the evaluation of whether the service has been completed correctly or even done at all is dependent on human interpretative skills and is not infallibly reproducible and hence is non patentable as per above.

In (a) (second instance) the method is patentable.

(I think (second instance) should be replaced by a (b). .....................................................

C Wootton

997 2763.

Original Message---­

From: Riel, Louis-Pierre: #CIPO - OPIC Sent. Friday, October 08, 2004 3:43 PM To: Patent - Dirs. + Examiners

Subject: Ébauches de chapitre du RPBB - MOPOP Chapters drafts

English follows the Green line

Une ébauche des chapitres 12 et 16 est maintenant disponible au répertoire suivant : S APATENT\DOCLTMNTS\Draft-Ebauche

Le sujet du chapitre 12 est « Utilité et matière » et le sujet du chapitre 16 est « Inventions mises en œuvre par ordinateur ». L'ancien chapitre 12 sur la classification sera éliminé et la matière sera distribuée dans d'autres chapitres.

57


Ces ébauches vous sont distribuées afin que vous puissiez prendre connaissance de l'évolution de la pratique relativement à ces sujets. Ces ébauches ont été distribuées à un comité de l'IPIC pour commentaires. La période de consultation se termine le 18 novembre 2004, et nous espérons publier formellement ces chapitres un mois après la période de consultation. Ces documents ne sont pas pour l'instant disponible au grand

public.

Ces ébauches sont présentement disponibles en anglais. La traduction du chapitre 12 sera disponible la semaine prochaine. Le chapitre 16 a été envoyé au service de traduction aujourd'hui, et à en extrapolant les expériences passées, cette traduction devrait être disponible dans 5 ou 6 semaines.


Veuillez me faire parvenir vos commentaires et suggestions par courriel en utilisant le titre suivant : Chap 12-16

ou en utilisant la boîte chap. 12-16 sur le classeur à l'entrée de mon bureau (1415-C) La période de consultation interne se termine aussi le 18 novembre 2004.


Outils de Claude Mathieu : Veuillez prendre note que la dernière version du logiciel inquire/text visual est INQ3.5.EXE dans le répertoire :


S:\PATENT\Outils Tools\CMPROGRAM


Veuillez ne plus utiliser les autres versions de ce logiciel.

A draft of MOPOP Chapters 12 and 16 is currently available on : S:\PATENT\DOCUMNTS\Draft-Ebauche


Chapter 12's subject is "Utility and subject matter" and Chapter 16's subject is "computer­implemented inventions". Former Chapter 12 will be deleted and the content distributed amongst others chapters.


These drafts are made available in order that you can follow the evolution of the practice in these matters. These drafts were distributed to an IPIC committee for comments. The consultation period ends on November 18, 2004, and we are expecting to formally publish these chapters one month after the consultation period. These documents are currently unavailable to the general public.


These drafts are presently available in English. The translation of chapter 12 will be available next week. Chapter 16 was sent today to the translation office, and from past experience, this translation should be available in 5 or 6 weeks.


Please, send your comments and suggestions by e-mail by using the following title: Chap 12-16


or by using the box "chap 12-16" on the file cabinet close to my office (1415-C)

58


From: Pound, Kathleen: #CIPO - OPIC

Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 11:15

To: Maclaurin, Ed: #CIPO - OPIC

Subject: RE: Ébauches de chapitre du RPBB - MOPOP Chapters drafts

Hello Ed,

I have just a few comments on the MOPOP Chapter 12 draft:

On page 4, section 12.03.03 "Reproducibility" it is stated that "the expression "desired result inevitable follows" can refer to an accepted degree of success of a particular repetitive mass production method. For example, if a method is known and universally recognized in a particular art of having a success rate under a certain ratio or percentage of rejects, the desired result inevitably follows if this method is inside such parameters."

I was wondering if this might cause some confusion with regards to our position on monoclonal antibodies. While the Commissioner's Decision would be what we would follow, I imagine that the agents might argue that monoclonal antibodies fall under the characteristics of the above paragraph.

Additionally, there are ambiguities under 12.04.01 "Living matter". (I believe Joël already mentioned them.):

- fungi are listed as patentable, but I thought the office did not know exactly what to do with them;

- colonies of differentiated cells are listed as non-patentable, but these would encompass cell lines which are patentable.

I do not have any comments at this time regarding the Chapter 16 draft. It looks fine to me, but my understanding of computer-implemented inventions is limited.

Thanks, Kathleen

Original Message

From: Maclaurin, Ed: #CIPO - OPIC

Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 1:53 PM

To: Bounhar, Younes: #CIPO - OPIC; Brewer, Cynthia: #CIPO - OPIC; Chartrand, Nathalie: #CIPO - OPIC; De Vouge, Michael: #CIPO -

OPIC; Green, Robin: #CIPO - OPIC; Hansen, Christiane: #CIPO - OPIC; Heppell, Joel: CIPO - OPIC; Lloyd, Douglas: #CIPO -

OPIC; MacFarlane, Colleen: #CIPO - OPIC; Marshall, Philip: #CIPO - OPIC; Neppel, Anthony: #CIPO - OPIC; Notman, Holly:

#CIPO - OPIC; Ohan, Nicholas: #CIPO - OPIC; Oulton, Rena: #CIPO - OPIC; Pound, Kathleen: #CIPO - OPIC; Romsicki,

Yolanda: #CIPO - OPIC; Salvino, Ralph: #CIPO - OPIC; Sardana, Ravinder: #CIPO - OPIC; Trus, Nancy: #CIPO - OPIC; Wilde,

Kristoffer: #CIPO-OPIC

Subject: FW: Ébauches de chapitre du RPBB - MOPOP Chapters drafts

Please have a look at the drafts of chapters 12 and 16 and forward your comments to myself before October 29th. I'll pool them, remove duplicate comments and then send them along to Louis-Pierre.

Thanks Ed

Original Message

From: Riel, Louis-Pierre: #CIPO - OPIC Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 3:43 PM To: Patent - Dirs. + Examiners

Subject: Ébauches de chapitre du RPBB - MOPOP Chapters drafts

English follows the Green line


1


Une ébauche des chapitres 12 et 16 est maintenant disponible au répertoire suivant : S :\PATENT\DOCUMNTS\Draft-Ebauche


Le sujet du chapitre 12 est « Utilité et matière » et le sujet du chapitre 16 est « Inventions mises en œuvre par ordinateur ». L'ancien chapitre 12 sur la classification sera éliminé et la matière sera distribuée dans d'autres chapitres.


Ces ébauches vous sont distribuées afin que vous puissiez prendre connaissance de l'évolution de la pratique relativement à ces sujets. Ces ébauches ont été distribuées à un comité de l'IPIC pour commentaires. La période de consultation se termine le 18 novembre 2004, et nous espérons publier formellement ces chapitres un mois après la période de consultation. Ces documents ne sont pas pour l'instant disponible au grand public.


Ces ébauches sont présentement disponibles en anglais. La traduction du chapitre 12 sera disponible la semaine prochaine. Le chapitre 16 a été envoyé au service de traduction aujourd'hui, et à en extrapolant les expériences passées, cette traduction devrait être disponible dans 5 ou 6 semaines.


Veuillez me faire parvenir vos commentaires et suggestions par courriel en utilisant le titre suivant : Chap 12-16


ou en utilisant la boîte chap. 12-16 sur le classeur à l'entrée de mon bureau (1415-C) La période de consultation interne se termine aussi le 18 novembre 2004.


Outils de Claude Mathieu : Veuillez prendre note que la dernière version du logiciel inquire/text visual est INQ3.S.EXE dans le répertoire :


S:\PATENT\Outils Tools\CMPROGRAM


Veuillez ne plus utiliser les autres versions de ce logiciel.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------­A draft of MOPOP Chapters 12 and 16 is currently available on : S:\PATENT\DOCUMNTS\Draft-Ebauche


Chapter 12's subject is "Utility and subject matter" and Chapter 16's subject is "computer­implemented inventions". Former Chapter 12 will be deleted and the content distributed amongst others chapters.


These drafts are made available in order that you can follow the evolution of the practice in these matters. These drafts were distributed to an IPIC committee for comments. The consultation period ends on November 18, 2004, and we are expecting to formally publish these chapters one month after the consultation period. These documents are currently unavailable to the general public.


These drafts are presently available in English. The translation of chapter 12 will be available next week. Chapter 16 was sent today to the translation office, and from past experience, this translation should be

2


available in 5 or 6 weeks.


Please, send your comments and suggestions by e-mail by using the following title: Chap 12-16


or by using the box "chap 12-16" on the file cabinet close to my office (1415-C) The internal consultation period also ends on November 18, 2004.


Claude Mathieu's tools: Please note that the last version of the software inquire/text visual is INQ3.5.EXE in:


S:\PATENT\0utils Tools\CMPROGRAM Do not use other versions of this software.

Louis-Pierre Riel

Direction des Brevets/Patent Branch

« OLE Object: Picture (Metafile) »

Pièce/Room 1415C, Place du Portage I 50 Victoria

Gatineau, Québec

Canada

K1 A OC9

s Tél./Tel.: (819)997-0232 Télécopieur/Fax.:(819)994-1989 ®Courriel / Email :riel.louispierre@ ic.gc.ca ® Site WEB/ WEB Site : httq://OPIC.GC.CA

3


From: Sent: To: Subject:

Bonjour Louis-Pierre,

J'ai termine la lecture de l'ebauche du Chapitre 16 du RPBB. Dans l'ensemble, je le trouve tres bien. J'aurais néanmoins les suggestions suivantes:

111 serait utile de tracer une ligne de demarcation entre brevets et dessin industriel dans le cadre informatique. Précisément, les interfaces graphiques a l'usager sont probablement protégées par la Loi sur le dessin industriel, plutôt que la Loi sur les brevets.

2 La section 16.03.03 donne une explication assez claire de ce qui doit être fait lorsqu'une invention comporte des elements techniques (possiblement brevetables) et des elements non techniques (donc, non-brevetables).

Il serait toutefois utile d'ajouter un exemple, pour vraiment faire ressortir comment l'analyse de la revendication devrait être faite.

3_ Il serait utile d'indiquer explicitement si le Bureau considère comme brevetable (selon l'article 2) des revendications dont le préambule débute par: "A graphical user interface..." ou "A software tool...".

Plante, Claude: #CIPO - OPIC

Monday, October 18, 200412:51 Riel, Louis-Pierre: #CIPO - OPIC

Commentaires sur l'ebauche du Chapitre 16 du RPBB

4 Erreur d'écriture: page 9, dans "Example" ("a) means for collecting...at a rate of at n times...")


5_ Erreur d'écriture, page 11: Les étapes b) et c) sont identiques.


Bonne joumée,

Claude Plante 1305C, 997-1133

1


From: Heppell, Joel: CIPO - OPIC

Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 12:03

To: Maclaurin, Ed: #CIPO - OPIC

Subject: RE: Ébauches de chapitre du RPBB - MOPOP Chapters drafts

Hi Ed,


Here are my comments on chapters 12 and 16, as mentioned previously: CHAPTER 12:


12.04.01 Living matter


Uni-cellular life forms which are new, useful and inventive are patentable 22. In general, a process to produce or which utilizes these organisms is patentable. Uni-cellular life forms comprise:


1 microscopic algae;

2 fungi (including yeasts), excluding fungi colonies of differentiated cells (I would prefer

"excluding fungi composed of more than one type of cell in an organized structure", for

example. I don't think that "colonies of differentiated cells is clear") 3 bacteria;

4 protozoa;

5 viruses;

6 cells and cell lines in culture;

7 transformed cells and cell lines; and

8 hybridomas.


Where do we put fertilized eggs and zygotes? We should take this opportunity to take a clear position on this.


1) Multi-cellular life forms are not patentable subject matter 23. However, a process for producing a multicellular life form may be patentable provided the process requires significant technical intervention by man and is not essentially a natural biological process which occurs according to the laws of nature, for example, traditional plant cross-breeding 24. Multi-cellular life forms comprise: 2)

1) animals 25­

2) plants 26;

3) seeds 26;

4) tissues, organs, embryos 25, and parts of plants and animals; and

5) colonies of differentiated cells. (not sure what this means???)


Plant varieties that are distinct, uniform and stable may be protected under the Plant Breeders' Rights Act, administered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.


12.04.02 Medical treatment


A method or process of surgery or therapy (or prophylaxis) on living humans or animals is not considered to be within the scope of "invention" as defined by section 2 of the Patent Act, because such methods do not produce an essentially economic result in relation to trade, industry, or

1


commerce 2'. The exclusion does not cover methods of treating animals to derive economic benefit 28. If, when used for its leading purpose, a claimed method does not produce an essentially economic result, then that method is non statutory even if it could have other purposes 29. Articles or apparatuses designed for use in the treatment of humans or animals are patentable, provided they conform to all other conditions of the Patent Act 30



Methods of diagnosing a physical disease or physical medical condition in a human being, provided that the methods do not contain any step of surgery or therapy, may be patentable 31. The Patent Office practice regarding medical treatment is explained in more détail in Chapter 17 of MOPOP (currently under revision).

CHAPTER 16: Example



Claim 15. Computer readable medium having recorded thereon the nucleotide sequence depicted in SEQ ID N0:5, a representative fragment thereof or a nucleotide sequence at least 99% identical to the nucleotide sequence in SEQ ID N0:5.



Processing of the descriptive material in the computer does not alter or reconfigure the

function of the computer nor transform the computer into a new machine. Although claim 15 describes a statutory "manufacture", it would be obvious to store non-functional descriptive material (like the nucleotide sequence) upon it. Claim 15 would therefore be considered not to conform with section 28.3 of the Patent Act. (I think it should be specified that databases (of sequences, for example) on a medium, are also excluded, as this is what we are more likely to find in the claims)

Thank you, Joël

Original Message

From: Maclaurin, Ed: #CIPO - OPIC

Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 1:53 PM

To: Bounhar, Younes: #CIPO - OPIC; Brewer, Cynthia: #CIPO - OPIC; Chartrand, Nathalie: #CIPO - OPIC; De Vouge, Michael: #CIPO -

OPIC; Green, Robin: #CIPO - OPIC; Hansen, Christiane: #CIPO - OPIC; Heppell, Joel: CIPO - OPIC; Lloyd, Douglas: #CIPO -

OPIC; MacFarlane, Colleen: #CIPO - OPIC; Marshall, Philip: #CIPO - OPIC; Neppel, Anthony: #CIPO - OPIC; Notman, Holly:

#CIPO - OPIC; Ohan, Nicholas: #CIPO - OPIC; Oulton, Rena: #CIPO - OPIC; Pound, Kathleen: #CIPO - OPIC; Romsicki,

Yolanda: #CIPO - OPIC; Salvino, Ralph: #CIPO - OPIC; Sardana, Ravinder: #CIPO - OPIC; Trus, Nancy: #CIPO - OPIC; Wilde,

Kristoffer: #CIPO-OPIC

Subject: FW: Ébauches de chapitre du RPBB - MOPOP Chapters drafts

Please have a look at the drafts of chapters 12 and 16 and forward your comments to myself before October 29th. I'll pool them, remove duplicate comments and then send them along to Louis-Pierre.

Thanks Ed

2


Original Message

From: Riel, Louis-Pierre: #CIPO - OPIC Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 3:43 PM To: Patent - Dirs. + Examiners

Subject: Ébauches de chapitre du RPBB - MOPOP Chapters drafts

.English follows the Green line



Une ébauche des chapitres 12 et 16 est maintenant disponible au répertoire suivant : S:\PATENT\DOCUMNTS\Draft-Ebauche

Le sujet du chapitre 12 est « Utilité et matière » et le sujet du chapitre 16 est « Inventions mises en œuvre par ordinateur ». L'ancien chapitre 12 sur la classification sera éliminé et la matière sera distribuée dans d'autres chapitres.



Ces ébauches vous sont distribuées afin que vous puissiez prendre connaissance de l'évolution de la pratique relativement à ces sujets. Ces ébauches ont été distribuées à un comité de l'IPIC pour commentaires. La période de consultation se termine le 18 novembre 2004, et nous espérons publier formellement ces chapitres un mois après la période de consultation. Ces documents ne sont pas pour l'instant disponible au grand public.



Ces ébauches sont présentement disponibles en anglais. La traduction du chapitre 12 sera disponible la semaine prochaine. Le chapitre 16 a été envoyé au service de traduction aujourd'hui, et à en extrapolant les expériences passées, cette traduction devrait être disponible dans 5 ou 6 semaines.



Veuillez me faire parvenir vos commentaires et suggestions par courriel en utilisant le titre suivant : Chap 12-16



ou en utilisant la boîte chap. 12-16 sur le classeur à l'entrée de mon bureau (1415-C) La période de consultation interne se termine aussi le 18 novembre 2004.



Outils de Claude Mathieu : Veuillez prendre note que la dernière version du logiciel inquire/text visual est INQ3.5.EXE dans le répertoire :



S:\PATENT\Outils Too\s\CMPROGRAM



Veuillez ne plus utiliser les autres versions de ce logiciel.



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------­A draft of MOPOP Chapters 12 and 16 is currently available on : S:\PATENT\DOCUMNTS\Draft-Ebauche



Chapter 12's subject is "Utility and subject matter" and Chapter 16's subject is "computer­implemented inventions". Former Chapter 12 will be deleted and the content distributed amongst others chapters.



These drafts are made available in order that you can follow the evolution of the practice in these matters. These drafts were distributed to an IPIC committee for comments. The consultation period ends

3


on November 18, 2004, and we are expecting to formally publish these chapters one month after the consultation period. These documents are currently unavailable to the general public.


These drafts are presently available in English. The translation of chapter 12 will be available next week. Chapter 16 was sent today to the translation office, and from past experience, this translation should be available in 5 or 6 weeks.


Please, send your comments and suggestions by e-mail by using the following title:


Chap 12-16


or by using the box "chap 12-16" on the file cabinet close to my office (1415-C) The internal consultation period also ends on November 18, 2004.


Claude Mathieu's tools: Please note that the last version of the software inquire/text visual is INQ3.5.EXE in:


S:\PATENT\OutiLs Tools\CMPROGRAM Do not use other versions of this software.

Louis-Pierre Riel

Direction des Brevets/Patent Branch

« OLE Object: Picture (Metafile) »

Pièce/Room 1415C, Place du Portage I 50 Victoria

Gatineau, Québec

Canada

K1 A OC9

s Tél./Tel.: (819)997-0232 Télécopieur/Fax.:(819)994-1989 ®Courriel / Email :rieLlouispierre@ic.gc.ca g Site WEB/ WEB Site : httq://OPIC.GC.CA

4


From: Russell McOrmond [russell®flora.ca]

Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 17:17

To: Riel, Louis-Pierre: #CIPO - OPIC

Cc: Bincoletto, Susan: POL; Correspondence Minister/Correspondance Ministre: OCS; Rapley, Tara: #ATIP-AIPRP

Subject: RE: Looking forward to reading chapter 26 of patent manual by end of next week.



Copying Susan Bincoletto, who may be best positioned to forward this on to

the relevant person in Patent Policy. Copying Tara Rapley for her records


I will be sending a copy (with email addresses removed) to http://www.digital-copyright.ca/discuss/ for archival purposes.


On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 Louis-Pierre Riel wrote:


These chapters are currently under a consultation period with the patent

agents. The public release of this chapter will follow that consultation

--> period closing at the end of Nov. 2004. The public release most


I am wondering why there is a delay in publishing a draft? It does not

need to be marked as final. Is there no room for input on this new chapter from those whose activities will will be governed by it?


When I asked earlier about ATIP requests to get this information public

I was told by Tara Rapley (Senior Advisor, Information & Privacy Rights Administration, Industry Canada) that it would be published in October.


relating to the examination practice based on the Patent Act and Rules,

and on the Canadian jurisprudence. Any question of public policy should


I am aware that the position of CIPO is that this new chapter will be "based on the Patent Act and Rules, and on the Canadian jurisprudence".


Europeans were told the same thing by the EPO as this patent office pushed

to "harmonize" patent policy in Europe to the practices of the EPO that were in direct contradiction with the European Patent Convention (EPC) that created the EPO.


When I read an early draft of this chapter in preparation for http://www.flora.ca/patent2003/ I saw signs in Canada of the problems that

had been observed in Europe. Once this chapter is publicly published we

35


will better be able to determine whether it recommends ways to word pure software patent applications to get around the act and jurisprudence (Schlumberger).

Patent offices worldwide have been expanding the scope of patent policy

to include subject matter such as information processes (software, business models, etc) that simply could not have been considered in the drafting of the act. Expansion of the interpretation of patentable subject matter to include these new areas is new policy being set by the patent office. While each of these patent offices have claimed that they

were just interpreting the relevant acts and court decisions, in each case

a radical change in patent policy was taking place. These changes were happening without the required policy consultations and sound economic analysis that should be required for such changes.


Thank you.


> From: Russell McOrmond [mailto:russell@flora.ca]

> > >

>

the EU >

>

>

>

Chapter

> >

Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/> Telling my story: The Life of one Hacker

Early draft, looking for comments and corrections of my memory. http://www.flora.ca/russell/drafts/life-of-hacker.html

36


From: Riel, Louis-Pierre: #CIPO - OPIC

Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 8:35

To: 'Martin Marcus'

Subject: RE: Chapters 12 and 16 of MOPOP

Vendible can be found in numerous Canadian Decisions:

Apotex Inc. v. Wellcome Foundation Ltd. et al. 10 C.P.R. (4th) 65 LAWSON V. COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS 62 C.P.R. 101

SHELL OIL CO. V. COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS 67 C.P.R. (2d) 1

RE APPLICATION FOR PATENT OF NORTH OAKLAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (NOW PATENT NO. 1,163,822) 82 C.P.R. (2d) 282

RE APPLICATION FOR PATENT OF MERCK & CO. INC. (NOW PATENT NO. 1,294,879) 41 C.P.R. (3d) 52

Even if it seems to have been imported from U.K. in Lawson, it has been well accepted by the Canadian Court. Jurisprudence is a clarification of the interpretation of the Statute. This is part of the practice. We found that it is a concept which can be easy to visualized. However if you had another term that was helping you to draft, we can explore that possibility to assist agents in their drafting.

We will revise the chapters altogether when we will have received all the comments.

Thank you for your very prompt response.

Original Message

From: Martin Marcus [mailto:mjmarcus@rogers.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 6:19 PM To: Riel, Louis-Pierre: #CIPO - OPIC Subject: RE: Chapters 12 and 16 of MOPOP

"12.01" line 1, change "Office's" to "Patent Office" Lines 7& 9 change "Jurisprudence"

to

"jurisprudence"



2.02

Line 11: change "of MOPOP" to "herein".

line 4, after "obvious" add "to a person

having


ordinary skill in the art"


12.02.01

lines 2 & 4; change "process" to


"method".

Line7, change "producing in such object some change either" to "producing, in such object, some change, either".

Line 14,

MY COMMENT

I have difficulty including "vendible product" as part of Canadian

40

Hi All:

The following constitutes my comments CHAPTER 12

on these

two

chapters.


jurisprudence. The concept of vendible product

derives from the old UK statute and I do not

believe that it ever was included

-explicitly in the Canadian Patent Statute.

12.03 Line 2 after "description"

disclosure".

add

Line 14 change "an embodiment" embodiment"

Line 15 after "invalid" add "for lack of

"in

the

alternative

utility"

12.03.01

patent

"have, at the date of an

articulatable "

Prediction" to Prediction"".

"Monsanto" and 12.03.02

ordinary skill"

to "an

line 9 change "have at the date of the application an articulable" to the patent application,

Line 14 change "Doctrine of Sound ""Doctrine of Sound

Line 18 place superscripts 14a after

14b after "Burton Parsons" line 6 before "means" add "the". Line 7 change "skilled" to "having

ordinary skill"

12.03.03 line 1 after "result" add "must be" Line 9 change "skilled" to "having

approximation and"

12.04

"jurisprudence"

12.04.01

these"

"include"

12.04.02

Line 12, change "conjecture,


to "conjecture and approximation, and" line 3 change "Jurisprudence" to


line 2 change "produce or which utilizes

to "produce, or which utilizes, these" Lines 3 & 16 change "comprise" to

I have difficulty throughout to reconcile "an essentially

economic result in relation to trade industry or commerce"

It seems to me that a method of surgery does produce an economic result since the surgeon does not perform the

surgery for free; he does charge and so the is an economic

result. The rationale in the Eastman Kodak case was that it

attempted to circumvent old Sec 41. I think, in order to

avoid controversy, we should merely replace "do not produce an

essentially economic result in relation to trade, industry, or

commerce" by "by jurisprudence from the Supreme Court are not patentable"


12.04.03 lines 1& 2 change "mere scientific

principle

or abstract theorem" to ""mere scientific principle" or "abstract theorem""


12.05 line 2 after "by" add "jurisprudence

from"

41


art^ and


"preceding"?

"speculation"

and "speculations"

and


CHAPTER 16 16.01 16.02

to

"of: a)

"thereof"

add

"of the terms"

Lines 19 & 31 change "such as" to "e.g." Line 23 change "useful art" to ""useful


"fine art" to ""fine art""

Line 24 What terms should follow


Line 25 after "to" add "the" Line 31 change "scheme" "plan"


"idea" to "schemes" "plans" "ideas".

line 3 after "manner" add "which is" line 4 change "of a) hardware, b) the"


hardware; b) the"

Line 5 change "modules," to "modules;"; to "thereof;" and after "détail



Lines 8, 13, and 20 add "Questions to be

asked

should

be

the

disclosure"

"steps"

"sequences"

"internal"

disclosure"

important"

scientific

"timing",

add "the"

16.03.01

include"

Line 8 change "such as" to "e.g."

Lines 12 and 20 add "These questions

answered by the description in

Line 14 after "play" add "namely"

Lines 14 to 17 before "interfaces"

"location", "process", and

Line 23 after "description" add "in the

Line 31 after "but" add "it is also

35 after "scheme," add "i.e., a mere

principle or abstract theorem"

lines 2 & 3 change "skilled" to "having

ordinary

though it

may


skill in the art"

Line10 change "producing" to "even

possibly be considered to produce"


16.03.02

line 6 after "considered" add "to be"



Line 7 after "matter" add "per se"

Line 8 after "traditional" add "other"

Line 10 change "art" to ""art""

Line 17 add "c) it must be a "useful"


art as

distinct from a "fine" art even though it may possibly be considered to produce an essentially

42


economic result relating to trade, industry or commerce"


Line 20 change "Also, it" to "Patentable

subject

16.03.02a

an

economic

jurisprudence

jurisprudence

are not

be

considered to"

and

before

jurisprudence

considered not to"


matter"



line 5 after "reproducibility" add ", or



result,"


Line 11 change "it does not" to "of



holding that it may not"


Line 25 change "do not" to "by



patentable even though they may


Line 27 after "from" add "patentable"



"Office" add "Patent"


Line 40 after "methods do not" add "by

are not patentable and are




16.03.03

line

Line

2 delete "it is obvious that"

7 change "that in its totality is"




to

"that, in

"that, by

n

"reconfiguration: a

"computer):

or"





its totality, is"


Line 8 change "that by itself would" to

itself, would"


Line 9 change "such as" to "e.g."

Line 21 change "commands" to "commands;"

Line 23 change "reconfiguration a "to


Line 24 change "computer) or" to

16.04

Line 27 change "among" to "amongst"

Line 38 change "such as" to "e.g."

Line 41 after "new" add "and"

line 3 change "process (method)" to

"method"

16 04.01



HEADING change process" to "method"

sampling

of a"

16.04.02

Line 6 change "Claim 1 A" to ""A"

Line 8 change "sampling a" to "the


Line

Line

line

and change "n" to ""n""



12 after

13 change

5 change

"frequencies;" add "and"

"the" to "said'

"such as" to "e.g."

change

"card" to

16.04.03a

Line

Line

Line

Line

Line

Line

line

7 change

9 change

10 change

12 change

13 after

14 change

"Claim 2 An" to "An"

"at n° to "of "n""

"n" to ""n""

"filter" to "a filter"

"frequencies;" add "and"

"the" to "said" and



"card""




3

after "theorem" add "and'


Line

10

change "claim 3 A" to "A"


Line

11

change "claim 1" to "claim ...""




43


claim"

Line 20 change "Claim 4 A" to "A"

Lines 24 & 26 change "n" to ""n""

Line

28

after

"frequencies;" add "and"

Line

29

change

"card" to "card""

Line

32

change

"Claim 5 A" to "A"

Lines

34

& 36

change "n" to "On""

Line

38

after

"frequencies;" add "and"

Line

39

change

"card" to "card""

Line

41

change

"recorded thereon the


computer program" to "recoded the computer program thereon"

16.04.03b line 4 change "Claim6 A" to "A""

Lines 8 & 9 change "n" to ""n""

Line 14 after "frequencies;" add "and" Line 15 change "card" to "card""



16.04.03c line 8 change "Claim 7 A" to "A"" Lines 15,16 (both occurances) and 19

(all

occurances) , change "the " to "said"

"thereby

to"

16.05.01

Lines l9-20 change "to thereby" to

line 3 change "claim 8 A" to "A"" and

change

"f" to

is

not

claim"

change "f" to

WOMB"

" "all 11

claim"

immediately

previous claim"

change

"all to







""fa"



Line 5 change "Formulae" to "This claim



patentable since formulae"


Line 7 change "of claim 8" to "of this

Line 13 change "Claim 9 A" to "A"" and




""f. n


Line 15 change "m" (both occurances) to

Line 17 change "a" (both occurances) to


Lines 19

Lines 22

& 21 change "f" to ""f""

& 28 change "claim 9" to "this


Line 26 change "claim 8" to "The

Line 31 change "Claim 10 A" to ""A""

Lines 33 & 34 change "y" to ""y"" and


""ä""



40, 41, 42, 43, and 44


Lines 36, 38,


change

"the" to





"said'


Lines

43

& 45 change "f" to ""f""


Line

44

change

"value" to "value; and"


Line

56

change

"Claim 11 A" to ""A"" and

change "x"



to

""x""






Line 57

change

"steps" to "step"


44

Lines 12 & 13 change "Claim 3" to "This


Line 60 change "T" to ""T"" and change

n t n

to n n t n n

Line 61 change "Z" to ""Z"" and change "true' to ""true""

Line 71 change "Claim 12 A" to ""A"" Line 76 change "molecules" to

""molecules""

Line 81 after "computer" add "for the

mental

calculation steps of chemists"


16.05.02

line 1 include the footnote number for

Line 4 before "Office" ad Patent"

line 3 after "Act" add "as defined by

the

Schlumberger case



16.05.02


the


Courts"



Lines 5 & 23; AGAIN my personal view

that




the

concept of a "vendible" product

derives

from the old

British statute and has

no



explicit

counterpart in

the Canadian

Patent



statute

I would personally

prefer not to

include

"vendible" in the MPOP since

there


are

many other statutory and judicial reasons for

denying patentability for the examples given Line 35 after "Since" add used"

16.05.04 line 4 change "Claim 13 A" to ""A"" Line 24 change "allocation" to "allocation""

Line 25 change "claim 13" to "this

claim"

Line 29 add the footnote number for the Lawson citation

Line 38 change "claim 13" to "the above

claim"

16.05.05 line 9 change "Claim 14 A" to ""A"" Line 10 change "work" to "work""

Lines 13-14 change "claim 14 to "this

claim"

Line 18 change "Claim 15 A" to ""A"" Line 20 change "5" to "5 "" Lines 23 & 24 change "claim 15" to "this claim"

45

"the claim


s.19(1)

Original Message

From: Riel.LouisPierre@ic.gc.ca [mailto:Riel.LouisPierre@ic.gc.ca] Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 3:04 PM

To

louis.martineau@l-m.ca; mjmarcus@rogers.com;

The due date for your comments is November 18, 2004.


These chapters were also transmitted to the President of IPIC for revision

by Mark Schisler. You can may be take the opportunity at the next IPIC meeting in Banff to exchange comments and suggestions amongst the different

parties.


«Chapter 12 - October 8 2004.pdf» «Chapter 12 - October 8 2004.wpd»

«Chapter 16 - October 8 2004.pdf» «Chapter 16 - October 8 2004.wpd»

« ... OLE Obj ... »

>

46


To: Subject:

Martin Marcus [mjmarcus@rogers.com] Wednesday, October 13, 2004 18:19 Riel, Louis-Pierre: #CIPO - OPIC RE: Chapters 12 and 16 of MOPOP

Hi All:

The following constitutes my comments on these two chapters. CHAPTER 12

"12.01" line 1, change "Office's" to "Patent Office" Lines 7& 9 change "Jurisprudence"

to

"jurisprudence"

Line 11: change "of MOPOP" to "herein".

2.02 line 4, after "obvious" add "to a person

having ordinary skill in the art"

12.02.01 lines 2 & 4; change "process" to

"method".

Line7, change "producing in such object some change either" to "producing, in such object, some change, either".

Line 14,

MY COMMENT

I have difficulty including "vendible product" as part of Canadian

jurisprudence. The concept of vendible product

derives from the old UK statute and I do not believe that it ever was included

explicitly in the Canadian Patent Statute.

12.03 Line 2 after "description" add "in the disclosure".

Line 14 change "an embodiment" to "an alternative embodiment"

Line 15 after "invalid" add "for lack of

utility"

12.03.01

patent

"have, at the date of

an

articulatable

Prediction" to Prediction"".

"Monsanto" and 12.03.02

ordinary skill"

12.03.03 line 1 after ^result" add "must be"

Line 9 change "skilled" to "having

ordinary

skill"

Line 12, change "conjecture,

approximation

47

"

line 9 change "have at the date of the application an articulable" to the patent application,

Line 14 change "Doctrine of Sound ""Doctrine of Sound

Line 18 place superscripts 14a after

14b after "Burton Parsons" line 6 before "means" add "the". Line 7 change "skilled" to "having


and"


to "conjecture and approximation, and"

line 3 change "Jurisprudence" to

12.04


"jurisprudence"

line 2 change "produce or which utilizes


12.04.01


these"


to "produce, or which utilizes, these"

"include"

12.04.02

Lines 3 & 16 change "comprise" to




I have difficulty throughout to reconcile "an essentially

economic result in relation to trade industry or commerce"

It seems to me that a method of surgery does produce an economic result since the surgeon does not perform the

surgery for free; he does charge and so the is an economic

result. The rationale in the Eastman Kodak case was that it

attempted to circumvent old Sec 41. I think, in order to

avoid controversy, we should merely replace "do not produce an

essentially economic result in relation to trade, industry, or

commerce" by "by jurisprudence

from the Supreme Court are not

patentable"




12.04.03 lines 1&

2 change "mere scientific




principle

or abstract theorem" to ""mere scientific principle" or

"abstract


theorem""


12.05

line 2 after "by" add "jurisprudence

from^

the

following"

art"

and


Line16 change "as follows" to "include

Lines 19 & 31 change "such as" to "e.g."

Line 23 change "useful art" to ""useful

"fine art" to ""fine art""

Line 24 What terms should follow

Line 25 after "to" add "the"

Line 31 change "scheme" "plan"

"idea" to "schemes " "plans"

^ideas ".

"preceding"?

"speculation"

and

"speculations"

and





CHAPTER 16 16.01

16.02


to

"of : a)

"thereof"

add

"of the terms"

asked

line 3 after "manner" add "which is" line 4 change "of a) hardware, b) the"


hardware; b) the"

Line 5 change "modules," to "modules;"; to "thereof;" and after "détail



Lines 8, 13, and 20 add "Questions to be include"

48


should

be

the

disclosure"

"steps"

"sequences"

"timing",

Line 8 change "such as" to "e.g."

Lines 12and 20 add "These questions

answered by the description in

Line 14 after "play" add "namely"

Lines 14 to 17 before "interfaces"

"location", "process", and

"internal"

disclosure"

important"

scientific

add "the"

16.03.01

Line 23 after "description" add "in the

Line 31 after "but" add "it is also

35 after "scheme," add "i.e., a mere

principle or abstract theorem"

lines 2 & 3 change "skilled" to "having

ordinary

though it

may


skill in the art"

Line10 change "producing" to "even

possibly be considered to produce"


16.03.02

line 6 after "considered" add "to be"



Line 7 after "matter" add "per se"

Line 8 after "traditional" add "other"

Line 10 change "art" to ""art""

Line 17 add "c) it must be a "useful"


art as

distinct from a "fine" art even though it may possibly be considered to produce an essentially economic result relating to trade, industry or commerce"

Line 20 change "Also, it" to "Patentable subject matter"

16.03.02a line 5 after "reproducibility" add ", or

an

economic result,"

Line 11 change "it does not" to "of jurisprudence holding that it may not"

jurisprudence are not

be

considered to"

and before

jurisprudence considered not to" 16.03.03

to

"that, in

"that, by

Line 25 change "do not" to "by patentable even though they may Line 27 after "from" add "patentable"


"Office" add "Patent"

Line 40 after "methods do not" add "by are not patentable and are


line 2 delete "it is obvious that"

Line 7 change "that in its totality is"


its totality, is"

Line 8 change "that by itself would" to

itself, would"

Line 9 change "such as" to "e.g."

49


"reconfiguration: a "

"computer):

Line 21 change "commands" to "commands;"

Line 23 change "reconfiguration a "to

Line 24 change "computer) or" to

or"

16.04

Line 27 change "among" to "amongst"

Line 38 change "such as" to "e.g."

Line 41 after "new" add "and"

line 3 change "process (method)" to

"method"

16 04.01




HEADING change process" to "method"

sampling

of a"


Line 6 change "Claim 1 A" to ""A"

Line 8 change "sampling a" to "the




and change Ono to ""n""


16.04.02

Line

Line

line

12 after

13 change

5 change

"frequencies;^ add "and"

"the" to "said'

"such as" to "e.g."

change

"card" to


Line

Line

Line

Line

Line

Line

7 change

9 change

10 change

12 change

13 after

14 change

"Claim 2 An" to "An"

"at n^ to "of "n^^

"n" to ""n""

"filter" to "a filter"

"frequencies;" add "and"

"the" to "said" and




"card""



16.04.03a

line

3 after "theorem" add "and'

claim"


Line

Line

Lines

Line

Lines

Line

Line

Line

Lines

Line

Line

Line

10 change "claim 3 A" to "A"

11 change "claim 1" to "claim ...""

12 & 13 change "Claim 3" to "This




20 change "Claim 4 A^ to "A"

24 & 26 change ^n^ to ""n""

28 after "frequencies;" add "and"

29 change "card" to "card""

32 change "Claim 5 A" to "A"

34 & 36 change "n" to ""n""

38 after "frequencies;" add "and"

39 change ^card^ to "card""

41 change "recorded thereon the


computer program" to "recoded the computer program thereon"

16.04.03b line 4 change "Claim6 An to "A""

Lines 8 & 9 change "n" to ""n""

Line 14 after "frequencies;" add "and" Line 15 change "card" to "card""



16.04.03c line 8 change "Claim 7 A" to "A"" Lines 15,16 (both occurances) and 19

(all

occurances) , change "the " to "said"

Linesl9-20 change "to thereby" to

"thereby to"

change "f" to

16.05.01 line 3 change "claim 8 A" to "A"" and ""f""

50


is not


claim"

change "f" to

Line 5 change "Formulae" to "This claim

patentable since formulae"

Line 7 change "of claim 8" to "of this

Line 13 change "Claim 9 A" to "A"" and

n n f n n

""m""

Line 15 change "m" (both occurances) to

Line 17 change "a" (both occurances) to

11 "all 11





claim"

immediately

previous claim"

change

"a" to

Lines 19

Lines 22

& 21 change "f" to ""f""

& 28 change "claim 9" to "this


Line 26 change "claim 8" to "The

Line 31 change "Claim 10 A" to ""A""

Lines 33 & 34 change "y" to ""y^" and


-an n



40, 41, 42, 43, and 44


Lines 36, 38,


change

"the" to





"said'


Lines

43

& 45 change "f" to ""f""


Line

44

change

"value" to "value; and"


Line

56

change

"Claim 11 A" to ""A"" and

change "x"



to

change

change

""x""

"steps" to "step"

"x" to ""x"" and change


Line 57

Line 59




"a­

to -a­

Line 60 change "T" to ""T"" and change

"t"

to ""tun

Line 61 change "Z" to ""Z"" and change ""true""

Line 71 change "Claim 12 A" to ""A"" Line 76 change "molecules" to

""molecules""

Line 81 after "computer" add "for the

mental

calculation steps of chemists"


16.05.02

line 1 include the footnote number for

Line 4 before "Office" ad Patent"

line 3 after "Act" add "as defined by

the

Schlumberger case



16.05.02


the


Courts"



Lines 5 & 23; AGAIN my personal view

that




the

concept of a "vendible" product

derives

from the old

British statute and has

no



explicit

counterpart in

the Canadian

Patent



statute.

I would personally

prefer not to

include

"vendible" in the MPOP since

there


51

"true' to


are

many other statutory and judicial reasons

for

denying patentability for the examples given

Line 35 after "Since" add "the claim

used"

16.05.04


"allocation"" claim"


Lawson claim"

line 4 change "Claim 13 A" to ""A"" Line 24 change "allocation" to

Line 25 change "claim 13" to "this

Line 29 add the footnote number for the citation

Line 38 change "claim 13" to "the above

16.05.05 line 9 change "Claim 14 A" to "^A"" Line 10 change "work" to "work"" Lines 13-14 change "claim 14 to "this

claim"

Line 18 change "Claim 15 A" to ""A"" Line 20 change "5" to "5 "" Lines 23 & 24 change "claim 15" to "this claim"

s.19(1)

Original Message

From: Riel.LouisPierre@ic.gc.ca fmailto:Riel.LouisPierre@ic.gc.ca]

Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 3:04 PM

To:

Subject : Chapters 12 and 16 of MOPOP

The due date for your comments is November 18, 2004.

52


These chapters were also transmitted to the President of IPIC for revision

by Mark Schisler. You can may be take the opportunity at the next IPIC meeting in Banff to exchange comments and suggestions amongst the different

parties.


«Chapter 12 - October 8 2004.pdf» «Chapter 12 - October 8 2004.wpd»

«Chapter 16 - October 8 2004.pdf» «Chapter 16 - October 8 2004.wpd»

« ...OLE Obj... »

>

53


From: Sent: To: Subject:

De Vouge, Michael: #CIPO - OPIC

Friday, October 29, 2004 14:47 Maclaurin, Ed: #CIPO - OPIC

Comment on draft of Chapter 16 of MOPOP

My primary concern is that there is no definitive statement in the chapter with regard to a form of claim that appears occasionally in my art (Cl 20-1/68) - a claim directed to a "database". Not having extensive computer expertise, my interpretation of these types of claims until now is that a database appears to correspond to a data structure, and that a functionally novel form of data structure may potentially be patentable in some claim format that recites means, function and is directed to a computer system. In my own art, claims to databases thus far have invariably been known commerical databases that contain non-functional descriptive matter (nucleic acid sequences, medical or patient data and the like). Consequently, my approach has been to declare a database comprising non-functional descriptive matter to be obvious, in that the descriptive matter cannot form the inventive aspect. In considering the draft of the new paragraph 16.05.05, it appears that this paragraph may also satisfy my arguments if a database may be taken to mean a data storage medium as opposed to a data structure. A comment or example using a claim directed to a "database" may provide further clarity, in view the number of instances I (and probably others) expect to encounter.


Mike De Vouge Patent Examiner - C1

I


Riel, Louis-Pierre: #CIPO - OPIC

From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

Michel Gérin [mgerin@ipic.ca] Tuesday, November 2, 2004 9:51 Riel, Louis-Pierre: #CIPO - OPIC Lajoie, Agnes : CIPO RE: Révision du MOPOP

C'est partait. Merci d'avoir pris le temps de me fournir ces explications. Michel

Michel Gérin

Executive Director, Intellectual Property Institute of Canada Directeur général, Institut de la propriété intellectuelle du Canada Tel: 613-234-0516


Fax: 613-234-0671


----Original Message

From: Riel.LouisPierre@ic.gc.ca [mailto:Riel.LouisPierre@ic.gc.ca] Sent: November 2, 2004 8:38

To: mgerin@ipic.ca

Cc: Iajoie.agnes@ic.gc.ca

Subject: RE: Révision du MOPOP

Cher M. Gérin,

Cette consultation n'a jamais eu pour but d'être une position officielle de l'IPIC et et l'entête de la feuille que j'ai remis aux membres du JLC n'était que ma liste de nom dans mon logiciel Outlook. Je vais changer l'acronyme IPIC pour "Patent Profesionnals" qui ne correspond à aucun organisme existant. Depuis le début il a été clair qu'il s'agissait d'opinion individuelle de la part d'agent pour aider la rédaction et éclaircir le sens de phrases ou de paragraphes. Ce n'est pas le premier exercice de révision du RPBB, et à chaque fois beaucoup d'efforts ont été déployés afin que les chapitres de ce manuel puissent bien compris par les examinateurs et les agents. L'échantillonnage de quelques agents (il y a 16 agents dans ce groupe) a été et est très utile pour cette évaluation.

Vous avez bien compris la portée en mentionnant qu'il s'agit d'un exercice équivalent aux « focus groups ».

27


Pour ce qui est de la position officielle il est clair que nous utiliserons la lettre qui nous parviendra en réponse à la lettre de Mme Lajoie, et ceci a été mentioné à M. Creber pendant la réunion du 27 octobre 2004. Pour ce qui est des opinions qui seraient ou pourraient sembler contradictoire de la part des membres du groupe informel, nous interprétons ceci plutôt comme une différence de compréhension, et résulte normalement à la modification ou en l'expansion du paragraphe pour rendre la position de l'OPIC plus claire. En d'autres termes nous voyons ceci plus comme un manque d'explication de notre part que d'une position ferme des agents. Vous n'avez pas à regretter le message dans le Bulletin, il est très clair depuis le début que nous ne considérons pas cet exercice de révision comme une position officielle. Considérant que vous publiez votre position officielle sur votre site, cette postion est claire pour vos membres.

En espérant que ceci répond à vos inquiétudes.

Original Message

From: Michel Gérin [mailto:mgerin@ipic.ca]

Sent: Monday, November 1, 2004 2:09 PM To: Riel, Louis-Pierre: #CIPO - OPIC

Cc: Lajoie, Agnes : CIPO Subject: Révision du MOPOP

Bonjour Louis-Pierre,

Tony Creber m'a fait part qu'à la réunion du 27 octobre du JLC il fut question de la révision du Chapitre 12 et il fut étonné d'apprendre que l'IPIC avait déjà été consulté par le biais du « IPIC MOPOP Revision Team ». Je présume que cette équipe découle du message que vous avez fait publié dans le Bulletin de l'IPIC en juin 2003 invitant des membres de l'IPIC à aider avec la révision. Cela m'avait inquiété à l'époque et je vous avais appelé. Vous m'aviez rassuré mais, à moins que Tony ne se trompe dans ce qu'il a compris, je commence à regretter ce message dans le Bulletin.

Ce que j'avais compris, et que je veux réitérer, est :

- Les gens que vous avez recrutés le font à titre individuel. Ils ne représentent nullement l'IPIC et le groupe ne devrait pas avoir IPIC dans son nom. C'est la première fois aujourd'hui que je vois la liste des membres de ce groupe. Ce sont certainement des gens très compétents qui peuvent vous aider mais le Conseil de l'IPIC approuve toujours la composition de ses comités et celui-ci n'en n'est pas un.

- J'avais accepté de placer ce message car vous vouliez accélérer le processus mais pour moi il était clair que nos comités et le Conseil auraient l'occasion de réviser le travail et donner des commentaires. Pour moi ceci était équivalent à aider votre collègue Brian Creamer à organiser des « focus groups ».

- Puisque Agnès nous a demandé de fournir des commentaires sur les deux chapitres, je présume que cela n'a pas changé mais je veux en être certain. J'aurais du réagir lorsque j'ai reçu la lettre de Agnès qui fait référence au IPIC MOPOP Team. Nous n'avons pas d'objection à ce que vous consultiez des membres de l'IPIC. Cependant, il ne faudrait pas que ce soit à la place de l'IPIC ni que ce groupe porte la désignation de l'IPIC.


28


J'espère que cette façon de fonctionner vous convient.

Par contre, si cela semble vous occasionner des délais; par exemple si notre position officielle est différente de ce que nos membres vous ont dit dans votre équipe de travail, je demeure disponible à vous aider. Par exemple, on pourrait demander à certains de nos comités comme le JLC et le comité sur les TI de déléguer des membres sur une équipe de travail avec vous. Une partie du mandat de ces gens seraient de tenir informé leur comité d'origine afin d'accélérer le processus de consultation lorsque vous sollicitez les commentaires officiels et ainsi vous, et nous, éviter des surprises.

Bien à vous,

Michel

Michel Gérin

Executive Director, Intellectual Property Institute of Canada Directeur général, Institut de la propriété intellectuelle du Canada Tel: 613-234-0516

Fax: 613-234-0671

29


Riel, Louis-Pierre: #CIPO - OPIC


From: Maclaurin, Ed: #CIPO - OPIC

Sent: Tuesday, November 9, 200411:1$

To: Riel, Louis-Pierre: #CIPO - OPIC Subject: Ch 12-16

Hello Louis-Pierre,


Attached you will find comments on chapters 12 and 16 from several examiners in section C1. The comments are largely directed to subsection 12.04.01 which I believe Linda has also commented on. The concerns seem quite technical in nature and revolve around the définition of a patentable fungus and/or what constitutes 'colonies of differentiated cells".


There were also a few comments on chapter 16, principally from Mike De Vouge and Joel Heppell. I would like to add my concern over claims that define compounds or test methods in terms of data, eg. atomic co­ordinates, that is ultimately to be processed by a computer, ie. virtual chemistry or in silico test methods. However, I have not studied the issue intently and cannot yet define a firm position one way or the other.

Thanks


Ed MacLaurin

Acting Section Head, Section C1

997-9065 room 601 D


Comment on draft of RE: Ébauches de RE: Ébauches de Chapter 16... chapitre du RP... chapitre du RP...

26


Riel, Louis-Pierre: #CIPO - OPIC

From: Sent: To: Subject:

gregor.p.binkley@esso.ca

Wednesday, November 17, 2004 11:20 Riel, Louis-Pierre: #CIPO - OPIC Re: Chapters 12 and 16 of MOPOP

Louis Pierre Chapter 12 - Chapter 16 -
Chapters 12 and 1-October 8 2004.pd..October 8 2004.pd...

My comments are in the attached document.


(See attached file: Louis Pierre Chapters 12 and 16.doc)


Would you please send me a quick reply so that I know you received this note.


Thank you.



Greg Binkley

Imperial Oil Law Department

Phone 416 968 4174 Fax 416 968 4278 Email gregor.p.binkley@esso.ca

s.19(1)

Riel.LouisPierre@ic.g

c.ca To:

gregor.p.binkley@esso.ca, 10/08/04 03:03 PM louis.martineau@l-m.ca, mjmarcus@rogers.com,

12 and 16 of MOPOP

23

cc:

Subject: Chapters


The due date for your comments is November 18, 2004.

These chapters were also transmitted to the President of IPIC for revision

_. .

by Mark Schisler. You can may be take the opportunity at the next IPIC` meeting in Banff to exchange comments and suggestions amongst the

different

parties.





«Chapter

12

- October 8 2004.pdf»

«Chapter 12

- October 8

2004.wpd»





«Chapter

16

- October 8 2004.pdf»

«Chapter 16

- October 8 2004.wpd»




« ,..OLE Obj... »

>

(See attached file: Chapter 12 - October 8 2004.pdf) (See attached file:

Chapter 16 - October 8 2004.pdf)

24


November 17, 2004.

Louis Pierre


I do not have many substantive comments on the subject matter of the chapters. They are mostly editorial changes.


My comments on chapter 12 follow:


In section 12.02, there is the statement:


The expression "business methods" refers to a broad category of subject matter which often relates to financial, marketing and other commercial activities. These methods are not automatically excluded from patentability, since there is no authority in the Patent Act or Rules or in the Jurisprudence to sanction or preclude patentability based on their inclusion in this category. Patentability is established from criteria provided by the Patent Act and Rules and from Jurisprudence as for other inventions. Business methods are frequently implemented using computers. Guidelines regarding computer-implemented inventions are expanded on in more détail in Chapter 16 of MOPOP.


This paragraph follows the introductory words setting out the scope of the chapter. The statement is important, but seems to be in the wrong location. It may warrant a section on its own. However, it should not stay where it is since it seems to come up as a random thought.


In section 12.02, there is the statement:


1) Novelty. The invention must not have been "anticipated" by another patent or a publication that would deem it to lack novelty under that statute.



As worded, this statement is circular. It says that novelty is destroyed by a patent that would deem there to be lack of novelty. In addition, the closing words " that would deem it to lack novelty under that statute" are awkward. And finally, the reference to "that statute" is puzzling. There does not seem to be an antecedent for it. I suggest that the closing words be deleted so that the statement will read:


1) Novelty. The invention must not have been "anticipated" by another patent or a publication.


If you are unhappy with that, you can borrow the words from the statute and revise the statement so that it reads:


1) Novelty. The subject matter of the invention must not have been disclosed to the public before the relevant date.


Section 12.02 ends with the statement:

Even when subject matter is novel and unobvious, it can still be non-patentable if it does not fit in a recognized category (sections 12.02.01 and 12.04 of MOPOP), or is not useful (section 12.03 of MOPOP).


This merely repeats point 3 from above ( It [the invention] must fit in a recognized category, for not all subject-matter is patentable). Why restate point 3, but not any of points 1, 2 or 4? I think the entire statement should be deleted or incorporated into point 3.


In section 12.03.01, the statement appears:


2) the inventor must have at the date of the patent application an articulable and "sound" line of reasoning from which the desired result can be inferred from the factual basis; and


It would read better if the word have is moved so that the statement appears as follows:


2) the inventor must, at the date of the patent application, have an articulable and "sound" line of reasoning from which the desired result can be inferred from the factual basis; and

My comments on chapter 16 follow:


In section 16.03.03 we need a period between two sentences. The start of the fourth paragraph reads:


It is known that executing a computer program reconfigures a computer in a particular way through the program's instructions and commands, this reconfiguration is equivalent to differently wired circuits in the hardware.


It should read:

It is known that executing a computer program reconfigures a computer in a particular way through the program's instructions and commands This reconfiguration is equivalent to differently wired circuits in the hardware.


In the same paragraph we need a semi-colon, or some punctuation to separate concepts. The excerpt currently reads:


(e.g. general purpose computers are expected to, among other things, perform calculations, solve equations, and output or store results~programmable slot


machines are expected to, among other things, perform calculations, output certain results, and dispense winnings in accordance with certain probabilities).


The subject changes when programmable slot machines are addressed and so the statement should read:


(e.g. general purpose computers are expected to, among other things, perform calculations, solve equations, and output or store results;-programmable slot machines are expected to, among other things, perform calculations, output certain results, and dispense winnings in accordance with certain probabilities).


The same paragraph needs more punctuation changes at the end. The statement currently reads:


There is no inventive combination when, for example, a system is merely providing, in a known manner, a representation of the results of one or more of the calculations performed during the execution of the algorithm, this is a result having intellectual or aesthetic connotations rather than a functional result.


We need a period, so that the statement reads:


There is no inventive combination when, for example, a system is merely providing, in a known manner, a representation of the results of one or more of the calculations performed during the execution of the algorithm. This is a result having intellectual or aesthetic connotations rather than a functional result.



I think there is a common error through the claims, since they do not appear to be a sentence. Consider paragraph (a) of claim 1, which reads:


collecting samples of sampling a first signal at a rate of at least n times a frequency component of said first signal which is to be preserved, where n is an integer greater than four;


Even with the word "sampling" removed, the claim is still unclear. Perhaps it should be drafted as:


collecting at least n samples of a first signal whose frequency is to be preserved, where n is an integer greater than four;


This suggestion applies to all the claims in chapter 16 which incorporates paragraph (a).


In section 16.04.03a, I disagree with the statement after claim 3 that claim 3 is independent. It is clearly dependent on claim 1.


In claim 6, paragraphs b) and c) are identical and one needs to be deleted and the numbering changed.


Thank you for the chance to comment. Greg Binkley


Riel, Louis-Pierre: #CIPO - OPIC

From:

S.19(1)

Zischka, Matthew [mzischka@smart-biggar.ca]

Sent:


Wednesday, November 17, 2004 23:45

To:


Riel, Louis-Pierre: #CIPO - OPIC

Cc:

Subject:





. c




comments re
MOPOP 12 16.doc

Dear Mr. Riel,

Further to Ms. Morrow's email of November 12, I am attaching a memorandum reflecting a review of recently proposed Chapter 16 (and to a lesser extent 12) of MOPOP, made by certain of our firms' electrical/computer practitioners. The memorandum has also been submitted to the IPIC IT Committee reviewing these chapters.

Should you require anything further, please do not hesitate to contact me. Regards,

Matthew Zischka

Smart & Biggar Fetherstonhaugh

438 University Avenue, Suite 1500, Box 111

Toronto, Ontario

Canada M5G 2K8 Tel: (416) 593-5514 Fax: (416) 591-1690

E-mail: mzischka@smart-biggar.ca

---IMPORTANT NOTICE

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS TRANSMISSION IS CONFIDENTIAL AND ONLY FOR THE INTENDED RECIPIENT IDENTIFIED ABOVE. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION OR USE OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS UNLAWFUL. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS TRANSMISSION

IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY US BY TELEPHONE (416)593-5514(COLLECT) OR BY RETURN E-MAIL AND DESTROY THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE AND ALL COPIES

IMPORTANT NOTICE

s.19(1)

«comments re MOPOP 12 16.doc»

From:

Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 4:19 PM To: 'Riel.LoulsPierre@ic.gc.ca' Cc:

subject MOPOP ch 12

This will respond to your email message to my partner f October 8, 2004,

Attached is a memo prepared by my partner David Schwartz which summarizes the comments

relating to draft Chapter 12 of MOPOP. Your draft ch 16 has been referred to colleagues in our Electrical Practice Group, and we will let you know if we have any comments in that respect.

21


s.19(1)

« File: MOPOP draft ch 12 memo.doc >>

IMPORTANT NOTICE

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS TRANSMISSION IS CONFIDENTIAL AND ONLY FOR THE INTENDED RECIPIENT IDENTIFIED ABOVE. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION OR USE OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS UNLAWFUL IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS TRANSMISSION

IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY US BY TELEPHONE (613) 232-2486 (COLLECT) OR BY RETURN E-MAIL AND DESTROY THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE AND ALL COPIES

IMPORTANT NOTICE W_.

22


s.19(1)

Riel, Louis-Pierre: #CIPO - OPIC

From: Sent: To: Subject:

Louis Pierre,

I apologize for not having sent my comments to these chapters as of yet. I have been quite busy. Are you still accepting comments or should I wait for the next series of chapters to review? I did have a few comments regarding the Chapter dealing with Subject Matter.

Tuesday, November, 2004 14:21 Riel, Louis-Pierre: #CIPO - OPIC RE: Chapters 12 and 16 of MOPOP

Kind regards,

Original Message

From: Riel.LouisPierre@ic.gc.ca

Sen

To:

[mailto:Riel.LouisPierre@ic.gc.caj

gregor.p.binkley@esso.ca; louis.martineau@l-m.ca; mjmarcus@rogers.com;



Subject: Chapters 12 and 16 of MOPOP


The due date for your comments is November 18, 2004.


These chapters were also transmitted to the President of IPIC for revision by Mark Schisler. You can may be take the opportunity at the next IPIC meeting in Banff to exchange comments and suggestions amongst the different parties.


«Chapter 12 - October 8 2004.pdf» «Chapter 12 - October 8 2004.wpd» «Chapter 16 - October 8 2004.pdf» «Chapter 16 - October 8 2004.wpd»



« ...OLE Obj... »

>

15


From: Lajoie, Agnes : CIPO

Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 12:06

To: Riel, Louis-Pierre: #CIPO - OPIC; Giardina, Lillo: CIPO; Campbell, David: #CIPO - OPIC; de Schneider, Barney : CIPO

Subject: FW: Réunion au sujet du MOPOP

Pour votre information et discussion. ---Original Message

From: Michel Gérin [mailto:mgerin@ipic.ca] Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 11:59 AM To: Lajoie, Agnes : CIPO

Subject: Réunion au sujet du MOPOP

Bonjour Agnès,

Pour faire suite à la lettre de Steve (que tu devrais avoir reçue) et à notre conversation, je récrits pour essayer de planifier une réunion (si tu acceptes toujours de nous rencontrer). Nous aimerions pouvoir discuter de nos recommandations et aussi nous assurer que nous sommes sur la bonne longueur d'ondes pour les futurs changements au MOPOP.

De notre côté il y aurait Tony Creber (Président du JLC), Mark Schisler (Président du comité des TI), Mark Eisen (membre du Conseil qui fait le lien avec ces deux comités) et moi.

Est-ce que ce serait possible de se rencontrer dans la semaine du 13 décembre? Si tu veux me suggérer une date (sauf le 17) je peux confirmer avec mon groupe. Je crois que les deux Mark venant de Toronto et Waterloo préféreraient que la réunion commence plus tard que plus tôt.

Merci,

Michel

Michel Gérin

Executive Director, Intellectual Property Institute of Canada Directeur général, Institut de la propriété intellectuelle du Canada

16


Tel: 613-234-0516 Fax: 613-234-0671

17


Louis Martineau [louis.martineau@l-m.ca]

e Tuesday, November 23, 2004 11:31

To: Riel, Louis-Pierre: #CIPO - OPIC

Subject: RE : RE : Chapters 12 and 16 of MOPOP



Ça semble parfait, merci!


Si je vous donne des nouvelles de ceci vers la fin de la semaine prochaine, est-ce que ça serait encore OK?


Aussi, avez-vous reçu beaucoup de commentaires de la part des autres personnes de l'IPIC qui révisent ceci?


Louis Martineau



Message d'origine

De : Riel.LouisPierre@ic.gc.ca [mailto:Riel.LouisPierre@ic.gc.ca] Envoyé : 23 novembre, 2004 08:27

À : louis.martineau@l-m.ca

Objet : RE: RE : Chapters 12 and 16 of MOPOP


Notre version de WordPerfect est 10. Je crois que Word importe jusqu'à la

version 8. J'ai exporté les filières en format RTF qui peut être lu par Word. Le format risque d'être pas trop extra, un export est un export... Je

viens de recevoir les traductions, je ne les ai pas encore révisées. De toute façon avec les commentaires et suggestions il va y avoir des changements que j'appliquerai aux deux versions.



Original Message

From: Louis Martineau [mailto:louis.martineau@l-m.ca] Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 1:54 PM To: Riel, Louis-Pierre: #CIPO - OPIC

Subject: RE : Chapters 12 and 16 of MOPOP



Bonjour M. Riel,


J'essaie d'ouvrir les fichiers en format WPD des chapitres 12 et 16, mais Word m'indique que les fichiers sont corrompus. Pouvez-vous me les renvoyer SVP? Je sais que l'échéance pour la révision était le 18, j'avais oublié ça et je viens de retrouver le tout, je vais y jeter un coup d'oeil dans les jours qui suivent.


Louis Martineau s.19(1)

Message d'origine

De : Riel.LouisPierre@ic.gc.ca [mailto:Riel.LouisPierre@ic.gc.ca] Envoyé : 8 octobre, 2004 15:04

À .

; louis.martineau@1-m.ca; ca; is


mjmarcus@rogers.com;

3e . Chapters 12 and 16 of MOPOP

The due date for your comments is November 18, 2004.

These chapters were also transmitted to the President of IPIC for revision

by Mark Schisler You can may be take the opportunity at the next IPIC meeting in Banff to exchange comments and suggestions amongst the different

parties.

«Chapter 12 - October 8 2004.pdf» «Chapter 12 - October 8 2004.wpd»

«Chapter 16 - October 8 2004.pdf» «Chapter 16 - October 8 2004.wpd»

« ... OLE Obj ... »

>

19


Riel, Louis-Pierre: #CIPO - OPIC

From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

obviousness.wpd

Ebsen, Peter: #CIPO - OPIC Thursday, December 9, 2004 15:06 Riel, Louis-Pierre: #CIPO - OPIC Matheson, Leigh: #CIPO-OPIC Chapter 16 amendments

4


16.03.03 Obviousness


Section 28.3 of the Patent Act states that the subject matter of a claim shall not be obvious. This shall apply to computer-implemented subject matter as it does to other subject matter, but it should be noted that many methods, schemes, algorithms, etc. can easily be automated or implemented with a computer or software, without employing inventive ingenuity. The presence of a programmed general purpose computer or a program for such computer does not lend patentability to, nor subtract patentability from, an apparatus or process.


A claim must be examined as a whole. (See also 15.01.02 herein.) Although the claimed subject matter may consist of old elements, the combination as a whole may be inventive. However, to be considered inventive, the combination must lead to a new unitary result that is different from the sum of the results of the elements; there must be some cooperation or interaction between the elements that produces some unexpected advantage, result, or use. As was stated in Schlumberger, the mere presence of a computer (i.e. known technology) does not change the nature of a discovery'. Using known or general purpose equipment and technology to automate or implement a non­statutory method fails to comply with section 28.3 of the Patent Act. Likewise, the general purpose computer or equipment that has been programmed, in a known manner, to perform the non-statutory method also fails to comply with section 28.3. (For example, a computer which has been programmed to solve an equation).


It is known that executing a computer program reconfigures a computer in a particular way through the program's instructions and commands; this reconfiguration is

equivalent to differently wired circuits in the hardware 2. There is an inventive

combination when this reconfiguration:

a) results in a new and non-analogous use for a known machine (e.g. a general-purpose computer); or

b) provides an unobvious machine improvement.


A new use has resulted if executing the algorithm in the disclosed combination provides unexpected functional (as opposed to intellectual or aesthetic) results. There is no inventive faculty required in adapting a known system or device to a new purpose if the new purpose is analogous to any purpose to which the system or device has already

been applied in an analogous way 3. For example, general purpose computers are

expected to, among other things, perform calculations, solve equations, and output or store results; programmable slot machines are expected to, among other things, perform calculations, output certain results, and dispense winnings in accordance with certain probabilities; etc.


A machine improvement has been provided if executing the algorithm in the disclosed combination provides functional advantages over the prior art that are peculiar to the disclosed integrated combination.


There is no inventive combination when, for example, a system is merely providing, in a known manner, a representation of the results of one or more of the calculations performed during the execution of the algorithm - this result does not provide a non­analogous use for the system, nor does it indicate an inventive machine improvement.


A computer-readable medium containing only subject matter of an abstract or intellectual character, such as music or textual information, is not an inventive combination. However, a computer-readable medium containing a program or data structure is an inventive combination if that medium, when used in a computer, causes that computer to fulfill a new and non-analogous use.

16.05.01

To replace the paragraph under claim 9:


The method of claim 9 does not appear to be excluded by subsection 27(8) of the Patent Act, and is considered a series of steps carried out by a physical agent upon some physical object, because the wording of the claim clearly indicates that the steps involve a computer receiving, processing, and outputting data (see herein 12.04.03 and 12.02.01, respectively). However, the method is still not statutory subject matter because it does not produce an essentially economic result in relation to trade, commerce, or industry (see 12.02.01 a herein). Furthermore, it is an obvious physical embodiment of a non-statutory method or algorithm, and fails to comply with section 28.3 of the Patent Act. The subject matter of claim 8 cannot be made patentable by arbitrarily narrowing the field of use of the equation, or by adding input steps and post­solution steps to the algorithm (see 16.03.03 herein).

1. Schlumberger Canada Ltd. v. Commissioner of Patents (1981) 56 C.P.R. (2d) 204 (F.C.A.) at 205-206; to apply the ratio of the Federal Court while still recognizing the formal categories of subject matter under s. 2 of the Patent Act, the Patent Office interprets the Schlumberger

decision as stating that the claimed system was statutory subject matter under s. 2, but that it was not patentable, and that it was not an invention, i.e. it was an obvious mechanical embodiment of non-statutory subject matter.

2. Re: Waldbaum Patent Application No. 961,392 (1971) 5 C.P.R. (2d) 162 (PAB) at 167-169

3. Visx v. Nidek (1999) 3 C.P.R. (4th) 417 (F.C.T.D.) at 454, aff'd (2001) 16 C.P.R. (4'") 251 (F.C.A.)


Riel, Louis-Pierre: #CIPO - OPIC

From: Lajoie, Agnes : CIPO

Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 10:21

To: Riel, Louis-Pierre: #CIPO - OPIC

Subject: FW: Chapter 16 comments

Sensitivity: Confidential Salut Louis-Pierre,

Pour ton information...

Agnès

-Original Message­

From: Sabharwal, Paul: #CIPO - OPIC

Sent Friday, December 17, 2004 9:56 AM

To: Lajoie, Agnes : CIPO

Cc: Sabharwal, Paul: #CIPO - OPIC

Subject: Chapter 16 comments

Sensitivity: Confidential

I am forwarding my comments on the latest version of chapter 16 I found on the S:/drive. The comments pertain to the clarity of the chapter, in view of the current examination practice, and the kinds of claims we see in the division.

I did not see it appropriate, at this time, to forward these comments to Louis-Pierre or Peter, since they have been working hard to provide a final version of Chapter 16, and all these matters have been discussed and considered by us before. It would not be useful to them at this point. Perhaps they should host a few training sessions to get all the electrical examiners and SH's up to speed on the chapter. Also, we need a structure to ensure consistency in practice between the sections in dealing with the diverse cases that show up everyday.

Comments on
Chapter 16_dec04.w.

1


-- Comments on Chapter 16 - version of Dec 15/04

,. _ t ..., .. ,. v

Submitted herein are some comments on the final version of Chapter 16 dealing with computer implemented inventions. Many of the points raised have been discussed in earlier versions of Chapter 16, however, the final version is silent on these matters.


16.02 Full Description of the Invention


Under computer program it should be indicated that if the program is implemented in hardware (hardwired) the same questions should be considered to assess a proper description of the same or equivalent functions. In practice, the applicant's often argue that these elements are obvious to any skilled person, and therefore it goes without saying. What changes in QC and examination practice might a SH foresee or implement in view of 16.03.03?


16.03.02 Subject Matter In the second paragraph:


"Software in the form of a data model or an algorithm" is not clear since all software can be expressed as an algorithm. Is it being suggested that some kind of modifications will permit non­statutory software algorithms to be patented?


"Software that has been integrated with statutory subject matter may be patentable' is not clear as to what it is meant by the expression "integrated". This issue was discussed and addressed earlier, however, it does not appear that it is discussed or addressed in the final version of Chapter 16.


Notably, from the second paragraph it is not clear whether software can be patented, and particularly, in which situations can it be patented. At what point will non statutory subject matter become statutory? The same comments apply to algorithms.


In the third paragraph, two considérations are provided to assess whether a method is an art under section 2 of the patent act. It is not clear, in electrical arts, what is meant by "physical agent" and "physical object". Does the mere presence of a computer or a memory qualify as a physical agent? Are the following elements physical agents or objects: carrier waves, hierarchical structures. Do the following methods qualify: a method for generating (2k-2t) first order Reed­Muller codes, a method of providing directory assistance services, a method for evaluating leadership effectiveness using a computer, a method of stimulating performance enhancement in a human subject, a method for evaluating a frequency allocation plan, a method for managing rentals from a rental service provider by an insurance service provider, a method of financing the development of a product by a product supplier, and there are many more examples.


Similar comments apply to "essentially economic result". In the examples provided, namely: claims 8, 9, 10 certain judgements using these expressions are drawn, however it is not clear in practice how to assess these criteria. Does the physical agent and/or physical object have to be claimed?


16.03.02 appears to address limited categories of the subject matter we are examining. It is not clear how we should deal with pure software innovations, for example, new ways of organizing software libraries used in software programming etc. Are these patentable?


In the last paragraph:


"A search of the closest prior art document is performed" is confusing. Is it suggested that examiners will search for art on non-statutory subject matter? Further, in practice, where might art be found for subject matter that is non statutory and therefore not patentable? Are examiners supposed to assess compliance under section 28.3 for non-statutory subject matter, and if so, how?


A proposed wording is as follows:


"In practice, even when claims relate to categories not recognized as statutory subject matter, a meaningful search will be attempted, if possible. In this situation, the examiner will consider the closest non-excluded subject matter for searching purposes."


16.03.03 Obviousness In the first paragraph:


"Does not lend patentability to, nor subtract patentability from" is not clear because the foregoing discussion in the first paragraph relates to obviousness and not about patentability.


In the second paragraph:


The sentence "using known or general-purpose equipment and technology to automate or implement a non-statutory method fails to comply with section 28.3 of the patent act" is not clear. If the non-statutory subject matter is not obvious and has novelty and utility, is it patentable? What should be our practice?


General Comments and Practice Notes


The impact or potential impact of the widespread use of human actions as a substitute or supplement to technical innovation in computer-related arts is not addressed. Searching for art in the field of human actions is also not addressed. When human actions are substituted for technology, a new method to achieve known result can be drawn. Is such a new method patentable? According to a recent CD (1477) it is patentable.


Overall, the chapter makes frequent use of statements such as:


"can easily be automated or implemented"; "the mere presence of a computer";


"using known or general-purpose equipment and technology";

"adapting a known system or device to a new purpose if the new purpose is analogous to any purpose to which the system or device has already been applied";


All of these statements stem from what a skilled person in those particular arts would know, or what the common knowledge in those arts teaches. It is noted that in practice it is extremely difficult to demonstrate obviousness in this manner, especially with commissioners decisions that indicate otherwise. What changes in QC and examination practice might a SH foresee or implement in view of 16.03.03?


16.05 Examples


In the discussion for claim 9, it is stated that "the subject matter of claim 8 cannot be made patentable by arbitrarily narrowing the field of use of the equation, or by adding input steps and post-solution steps to the algorithm". It is not clear if this guideline applies only to algorithm claims which are subsequently amended after a s27(8) objection, or also to claims which appear at the onset to be written in this manner.


The example claim 10 which is proposed to demonstrate patentable matter stems from the Motorola decision, and is confusing.


Notably, claim 10 clearly sets forth the performance of calculations in steps a-g. The claim is clearly claiming an algorithm which is supposed to be non-statutory. To then say that it is somehow patentable is confusing. In the last paragraph it is stated:


"While the equation and the algorithm for solving it remained non statutory, the appropriately programmed computer (or inventive combination), the method as followed by the computer (the method of operation of the inventive machine), and the software for making the computer execute the algorithm could all be claimed".


It does not appear that the example claim 10 is claiming what is considered is in fact the invention and statutory. If claim 10 is patentable with non-statutory algorithm A, is a new and improved algorithm B also patentable? Or, is it now considered obvious to adapt any equation so that a computer may evaluate it more quickly and efficiently at the expense of a given amount of accuracy? Claim 10 as written and the proposed explanation for patentability will further confuse the practice of examining algorithms in claims. What changes in QC and examination practice might a SH foresee or implement in view of example claims 8, 9, and 10?