The whole discussion in the case turned around the question whether there was a lack of definition of the essential parameter d90 (particle size distribution of 90% of the particles) as the skilled person did not know whether the parameter d90 referred to 90% of the particles by volume, by number, by weight or by surface area.
Updates on EPC, PCT, EPO case law and the e-EQE
This is a monthly snapshot of the most important PCT-related changes – we include a full list of future changes, together with selected recent changes that are important for daily practice. The changes of 1 Jul 22 will be included in the Sept. 2022 edition of PCT.App.
Some treaty accessions were announced and e-PCT now provides additional recovery options in case of disruption. The biggest future change is still the “big bang” change to the ST.26 standard for sequence listings.
Following T 1989/18 according to which the description does not have to be adapted, T 1444/20 approves T 1989/18 and also quotes R 42(1,c) and R 48(1,c).
The decision of the ED
In the communication under R 71(3) the applicant was informed that the division intended to grant a patent whereby pages 29 to 41 of the description were to be deleted.
After a lot of work behind the scenes, the EPO and epi have published their extensive proposals for the new e-EQE. There are even mock exams for you to try. And they want your feedback ….
AR 1 to 4 and 6 to 8 were submitted with letter dated 07.11.2019 replacing AR 1 to 4 and 6 to 8 filed with the reply to the statement setting out the grounds for appeal of the opponent.
The proprietor put forward, in relation to these AR, that the filing was prompted by an obvious error by mistakenly including certain features in claim 3 of its previous AR 1 to 4 and 6 to 8 of 17 July 2019 and,