# Trunk is a vector size

## Vector structure in the EPC

Kurt Stamm

Mathematics of Patentability

Print edition € 98.00

VAT included

For almost fifty years, European patent law has been searching for the content, and cannot ... anymore
Description of "vector structure in the EPC"

European patent law has been searching for content for almost fifty years and cannot find it; it remains intangible rationally, a secret, a riddle. Although the content is used incessantly, it must be used - for linguistic reasons. As the practitioner the intangible quality without concept of content recognizes, must recognize practice goes far ahead of theory. Because the objective quantity can only be determined by the quality of the content.

With the lack of the concept of content, the constitutive immaterial quantity that not only justifies the patent claim but also the patent law in general is missing. This opens up a fatal gap that involves a lot of effort to bridge and avoid. The book closes this gap with the constitutive concept of content - and presents one in the vector diagram Overall view of the size requirements of the claim.

a) Intangible quality and material quantity in the patent claim

1. The designation of the initial object (G1) in the patent claim determines an immaterial low general quality (iG1) and a material large quantity (eG1).
2. The specifying technical feature (m) has a positive quality component (im) and a negative quantity component (em).
3. The technical feature increases the intangible quality (iG1) of the “designated” object in the claim, its content. At the same time, it reduces the material quantity of its subject area (eG1). The resulting object G (n features) generally has the components iG = iG1 + SUMim (1..n); eG = eG1 + SUMem (1..n). For the object in front of the marking C (c characteristics) applies iC = iG1 + SUMim (1..c); eC = eG1 + SUMem (1..c).
4. Novelty and inventive step are measured in terms of intangible, qualitative and materially quantitative changes in size in relation to the state of the art. The ratio “greater than / equal to / less” can be numerically determined qualitatively and quantitatively as a quotient.
5. These principles justify the development of vector analysis as an extension of the previous working method. The assumption specende features(im = 1, em = -1) is used as a first very simple approximation, with subsequent control of the individual structure type of the features.

b) Vector analysis in patent law

The ongoing ignorance of the concept of content not only opens a small gap in late amendments under Art. 123 (2) EPC - but a large black hole in which the necessary understanding of the patent claim disappears. Without a conscious qualitative concept of content and without a conscious quantitative concept of the subject area, the clarity of the respective decisive criterion is lacking. So that the criteria of content, subject area and the subject itself are interchangeable and confused. In this respect, patent law benefits from wideDiscretion‘, Which it owes to basic linguistic ignorance. The two not clearly recognized basic parameters in the patent claim - immaterial quality (inventive) and material quantity (new) - are the linguistic ones a priori certain only comparable sizes of concepts, not of objects: conceptual content and conceptual scope. They precede patent law and precisely establish the two limits of the patent claim. If, of all things, the constitutive, immaterial quantity of content is circumvented or ignored, the fundamental foundation of patent law is violated, negated. The scope for decision-making turns into a flood of decision-making uncertainties.

In the practical assessment, on the other hand, the sum of the properties is taken into account, which ascribe all the features to the subject of the claim. At the same time, it is also noted that “the designated object” generally defines a smaller area with each additional feature. Accordingly, practice uses both the conception of the content (as the sum of properties) and the subject area (as the difference between subject areas) - but it must not know that it is the two system-forming, necessary ones constitutive quantities the immaterial, the qualitative Conceptual content (iG) and the material, quantitative Scope of terms acts (eG).

The practically resulting entanglement of names for objects with unrecognized terms used tolerates concealment, disregard, and ignorance of long-known basic linguistic-conceptual conditions. Practice precedes the current teaching - it urgently calls for late enlightenment.

With the abolition of the "right to be ignorant" that will happen The »right« to obsolete effort and the burden of unjustified decision-making uncertainties is lifted. (Peter Sloterdijk: "Globalization is the rapid abolition of the right to ignorance")

1. Make visible what is invisible - measure what is measurable - calculate. what is predictable.
The book makes the “designated” initial object (G1) in the claim, its content (iG1) and its subject area (eG1) graphically visible and measurable. It uses a coordinate system with a vertical i-axis (immaterial quality) and a horizontal e-axis (material quantity). The technical features (m) with the components (im, em), the marking (C with iC, eC), the resulting subject matter (G with iG, eG), the specialist horizon (h), the Difference in novelty (ED = eC-eG = n-c) and the Invention difference (ID = iG-iC-h = n-c-h) are combined as a polygon of forces in Vector diagram graphically represented. And recorded numerically based on the units of the specifying feature im = 1, em = -1, With iG1 = 1, eG1 = 1 + n (n = number of features in the claim, c features in the prior art, h features obvious).
The vector diagram remains the same, regardless of whether it is used in German, English, French or in other languages ​​in the vector analysis. It is one globally understandable structure of any language - of great value for the European language community for general and individual comprehensibility in individual cases. The clear completeness of the diagram provides comprehensive guidance in teaching, training, representation, testing, objections, complaints and other developments, regardless of language.
1. Existing simplification of the evidence
So far, the feature has been used twice as one unity counted. It is given a quantitative (new?) And then a qualitative meaning (not obvious?) At different times. In vector analysis, on the other hand, the features (m) link the components quality (im) causally with quantity (em) right from the start. The previous simplification of the two verifications requires an object with more features than in the prior art and than in the obvious. Short: n-c> 0, n-c-h> 0.
1. Existing simplification is the approximate basis of the vector analysis
These simplifications do not use an initial object, have no content and are not always'expedient‘. However, they are sufficient as an approximation basis for vector analysis. Because the previous simplification is only useful if the Identification between two features lies. That is the case when all characteristics specifying act when their component im = 1 the content, increases the quality of the original object G1 and em = -1 his Subject area, its quantity diminishes.
1. The vector analysis system extends the existing simplification
The proven simplification thus proves to be a special case of the more general vector analysis. As an extension of the familiar, the new steps are based on familiar, reliable experience. The fact that the content is known before the novelty is checked is already part of the understanding of a word ('designation of the object') as General term: The term refers toa general abstract property for one Large number of concrete objects falling under this.
1. Feature and object types
Not all features are specifying. The relationship between quality and quantity (im / em) unexpectedly leads to general structural forms of the previously amorphous features and objects. 9 types are defined by their vectorial direction, in tabular form very simply by number combinations of the two unit components for im, em; iG1, eG1. These structural forms are of great practical importance. The question of Content expansion is answered by the respective type. Types 1-6 can be removed because the content is reduced (1,2,3) or remains unchanged (4,5,6). (More detailed explanations of the structure types in "Leseprobe", pp. 126-131).

The 9 types can be defined in the following form:
1 NW (1, -1); 2 N (1.0); 3 NE (1, 1); 4 W (0, -1); 5 - (0, 0); 6 E (0, 1); 7 SW (-1, -1) 8 S (-1, 0); 9 SE (-1.1)
[1 NW (1, -1): 1 is the type number, NW the vector direction as compass direction, (1, -1) denote the components (im, em) of the type]
1. Simplicity of the tabular form
As a chronological record of a long-term development, the book shows the way to lighten the confused darkness - which does not clearly distinguish the subject, the content and the subject area. It shows the qualitative content (im) with its quantitative subject area (em) in an operationally and technically extremely simple process. Anyone who always examines novelty and inventive step will find that the previous staggered units of a feature m (m = 1) now through a clear duality is represented. The table shows the standard values ​​| im = 1 | and | em = -1 | entered to the left of the text for the initial subject and characteristics. The resulting values ​​iG and eG result as simple sums. The corresponding values ​​from the state of the art can be added to the side with the sums iC and eC.
1. General sums of the components and approximation formulas as functions of n, c, h
The initial object can start the table above like a feature for 0 as a starting point with m0; the sums then start with 0.

COMPONENTS:
Subject of claim: iG=SUMim (0..n) = 1 + n; eG = SUMem (0..n) = 1
Document subject: iC = SUMim (0..c) = 1 + c; eC = SUMem (0..c) = 1 + n-c

REVIEWS:
Invention difference: ID = SUMim (1..n) - SUMim (1..c) -h = iG-iC-h = n-c-h
Difference in novelty: ED = SUMem (1..c) - SUMem (1..n) = eC-eG = n-c

In the differences ID and ED, the value for G1 disappears. Since G1 is identical for claim and prior art, only the feature differences are decisive. For all im = 1, em = -1 (standard = specification), the general sum formulas result in the same values ​​as the functions of the approximation formulas: The known approximations are thus retained as a special case of the new general sum formulas of the components. The sum formulas take each individual characteristic into account by replacing the general standard values ​​with actual, corrected values.

The author:
Kurt Stamm, Graduate civil engineer ETH, member of retired boards of appeal, EPA, Munich

• publishing company Carl Heymanns Verlag
• ISBN 978-3-452-29129-5
• release date 21.11.2018
• Edition 2nd edition 2019
• Page number 338
• Cover type cardboarded