Brief outline of the case
The opponent appealed the decision of the OD to maintain the patent in amended form.
The opponent argued lack of sufficiency and lack of IS.
Some objections only raised in appeal were not admitted by the board.
Updates on EPC, PCT, EPO case law and the e-EQE
T 1810/18 – An OP by ViCo can be very helpful!
by Daniel X. Thomas
Brief outline of the case
The proprietor appealed the decision of the OD to revoke the patent.
OP in-person were scheduled for 07.07.2022.
On the 27.06.2022 the proprietor’s representative requested postponement of the OP.
The OP took place as scheduled on 07.07.2022,
T 19/18 - A statement of purpose without support by structural features, does not develop any distinctiveness over the PA
by Daniel X. Thomas
Brief outline of the procedure
The proprietor appealed the decision of the OD to maintain the patent according to AR 3.
The opponent withdrew its appeal.
The board confirmed the OD’s decision according to which claim 1 as granted lack of N over D1=DE 10 2006 005 765 (First document X,Y in the ISR established by the EPO!).
T 2100/18 – Why is it necessary for a BA to refer to US case law? How do ranges have to be interpreted?
by Daniel X. Thomas
Brief outline of the procedure
The application was refused for lack of IS. An appeal followed.
In a communication in preparation for the oral proceedings, objections under Art 56, 84 and 123(2) and R 49(10) were raised by the board.
Following the communication of the board,
T 2360/17 – Deletion of claims - The saga continues
by Daniel X. Thomas
Brief outline of the case
AR1c was filed in response to the board’s communication pursuant to Art 15(1) RPBA20. Hence, its admittance is in principle subject to Art 13(2) RPBA20.
The single method claim of this request is identical to method claim 1 of AR 1b pending during the opposition proceedings and “maintained”