Hi Andrew,
Neither am I, a lawyer, but I reckon they are dead meat..and idiots to boot! To attempt a patent on such a concept is rubbish IMVHO - but what would I know?
Cheers
David
---- Dr David G More MB, PhD, FACHI Phone +61-2-9438-2851 Fax +61-2-9906-7038 Skype Username : davidgmore E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] HealthIT Blog - www.aushealthit.blogspot.com On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 21:43:22 +1000, Andrew Patterson wrote:
>> It would appear that the preliminary application has failed, because of a lack of "novelty and innovation".
>>
>
> This is the international preliminary examination report which evaluates the strength of the patent with regards international prior art - the patent then
> gets kicked back to the national body for acceptance or otherwise of the patent, and whilst the IPER is influential, it is non-binding.
>
> http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/basic_facts/faqs_about_the_pct.pdf (see questions 18 and 19)
>
> In this case the IPER doesn't look too good for the
> pharmacy boys - though they seem to have preceeded onto the national phase (i.e. Australia only) and seem to have been awarded the patent..
>
> I guess we'll know around the 14th March 2007 - if they keep paying their patent fees then the Guild obviously think it has _some_ value..
>
> Keeping in mind I am not a
> lawyer (I don't even play one on tv)
>
> Andrew
|
_______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
