The IP Factor

In a clarification of Patent Office Circulars M.N. 40 and M.N. 72, published on 27 July 2009, the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, Dr. Meir Noam informs us that Circular M.N. 40 which relates to establishing Unity of Invention requirement of Section 8 of the Israel Patent Law 1967, relates to biotechnology patent applications and is thus a specific case of Circular M.N. 12 which relates to  the Unity of Invention requirement in a general sense. He goes on to expound that the subsequent M. N. 40 over-rules the earlier and general M.N. 12 for relevant technologies, whereas M. N. 12 remains valid guidelines for other patentable material. Readers with a Talmudic background (and those that do the Korbanoth in the Preliminary Morning Service and understand what they are reading) will note that this is an example of klal u’prat- (where a generalization is followed by a specification, the specification overrides) which is the fourth method of Talmudic exegesis of Scripture according to Rabbi Ishmael’s formulation as brought in the Sifra, the Hallachic Midrash on Leviticus.

 Circular M. N. 72 relates to suspension of allowance when Section 17c of the Israel Patent Law 1967 has been invoked in cases where there is opposition or voiding proceedings to the granted application on which modified examination under section 17c is requested. In Circular M. N. 70, Dr Noam ruled that allowance can be granted on presentation of a Notice of Allowance showing successful examination where issuance has not yet occured. Dr. Noam has ruled that for sake of conformity, the suspension ruling of Circular 72 will apply to such cases as well. 

For some reason, Dr. Noam has chosen to base his reasoning on Rabbi Ishmael’s second rule: Hekesh- an inference of similar words or phrases. We note he could have used the first rule: Kal V’chomer- drawing an inference from a major premise to a minor one.  In other words, once application of Section 17c which is black letter Patent Law is suspended following institution of voiding proceedings, one could infer that the extension by secondary (tertiary?) ordinance in Circular M.N. 70 would obviously be suspended.