The legal status page, what does "grant in national office" mean, and is it just New Zealand (NZ) ? What about "non-entry into national phase" NENP JP mean ? There are over 50 points in the claims section .
CLAIMS : 1. A method for a health care provider to obtain personal health data relating to a consumer, the method comprising the steps of : the consumer causing personal health data to be stored in a secure repository, said repository requiring authentication of the consumer's identity before the consumer is provided access to the repository; the consumer selecting items of personal health data to share and identifying a health care provider, or class of health care providers, to whom access will be provided for those items of personal health data; a health care provider providing authentication of their identity to the consumer's secure repository and being provided access to those items of personal health data of the consumer for which the health care provider has been identified for sharing; the health care provider using the personal health data of the consumer to determine health care advice or the provision of a health care service for the consumer; and the health care provider recording details of the consultation and the advice or service provided to the consumer in the secure repository of health data of the consumer. This is the original claim, and I think all other claims fall back on claims in a chain upto this original claim. The most original part of the claim would be " the consumer selecting items of personal health data to share and identifying a health care provider, or class of health care providers, to whom access will be provided for those items of personal health data;", and everything else is prior art. e.g Mumps/Vista On Wed, 2007-02-07 at 06:56 +1100, Tim Churches wrote: > syan tan wrote: > > Are they patenting that particular method, or are they patenting the > > idea of using intermediate secure storage , and interoperating messages > > for patient record systems ? > > What they are trying to patent is what is described in the claims for > the patent application. My understanding is that individual claims of > the application can be opposed - that is what MSIA is doing. If enough > of the claims are refuted (with respect to innovation/prior art or other > aspects of patentability), then the whole patent application may be > rejected, or the applicants may decide it is not worth procedding with > the application. Either way, it is a win. > > So start using PubMed, Google, CiteSeer etc to find relevant prior art > (ie. published before 2001). Existing systems and products are also > prior art, not just papers and reports. Prior art can relate to just one > of the claims, or several, not necessarily all of them. There are heaps, > I am sure. > > Tim C > > > On Tue, 2007-02-06 at 21:40 +1100, Tim Churches wrote: > >> Tony Eviston wrote: > >>> Tim Churches wrote: > >>>> I have asked jenny how we can access a copy of the patent application - > >>>> I can see teh application details, but not the application itself in the > >>>> IP Australia Web site. How did we access it in 2004? > >>> http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=WO02073456&F=0&QPN=WO02073456 > >> Thanks Tony. Jenny Laffey also sent this (and attachment). > >> > >> Tim C > >> > >> -------- Original Message -------- > >> Subject: RE: FW: Email to Tim Churches and GPCG > >> Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 19:46:41 +1100 > >> From: Jenny Laffey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> CC: 'Vincent McCauley' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> > >> Dear Tim > >> > >> Sorry - that would certainly help! > >> > >> The complete documentation lives at the European Patent Office website: > >> http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=WO02073456&F=0 > >> > >> but have attached the list of Claims which are the gist of it which will > >> save GPCG members having to go to website unless they're really keen. > >> > >> Summary of lodgment details with respect to the Australian patent > >> application are at: > >> http://pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/ols/searching/patsearch/search_page.jsp > >> Reference 2002242456 > >> > >> One thing that came out of your 2004 discussions was your correspondence > >> with overseas contacts esp in Europe - sounded like your correspondents > >> believed that we successfully opposed it here, it would go down in flames > >> everywhere. Based on my conversations with IP Aust people here, this > >> doesn't seem to be the case; any overseas parties who might be affected by > >> its lodgment in their country may wish to oppose it in accordance with the > >> patent opposition processes there. We are not certain of the status of it > >> elsewhere. > >> > >> Vince has been in touch with DoHA about this who sound like they have > >> reached an arrangement with the Guild. Since uncertainty will remain for > >> industry whether this patent is in the hands of Guild or government, the > >> MSIA is still planning to submit an opposition regardless. > >> > >> Kind regards > >> > >> Jenny Laffey > >> EPISOFT > >> Director Business Development > >> M 0416 110 294 > >> F 02 9489 0852 > >> E [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> W www.episoft.com.au > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Gpcg_talk mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Gpcg_talk mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gpcg_talk mailing list > [email protected] > http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk > _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
