by Daniel X. Thomas
Deletion of claims has been discussed on the present blog, but the topic does not seem exhausted.
The present decision shows under which conditions procedural economy can be acknowledged.
It might however not be generally applicable.
Brief outline of the case
The opponent/appellant appealed the OD’s decision to reject the opposition.
by Daniel X. Thomas
Brief outline of the case
The application was refused for added matter, lack of clarity and lack of inventive step.
The applicants appealed the refusal decision.
Claim 1 of the MR and AR 1 and 6 were considered infringing Art 123(2).
Claim 1 of each of AR 2 to 5 lacked clarity since the claims defined at least 2 mutually exclusive requirements.
by Daniel X. Thomas
Brief outline of the case
The patent relates to recyclable thermoplastic insulation with improved breakdown strength.
Claim 1 relates to the processes for forming a polymeric composition.
Claim 4 relates to a process for producing a coated conductor.
Claim 16 relates to a coated conductor.
The opponent appealed the decision of the OD to maintain the patent according to a new MR and an adapted description.
by Daniel X. Thomas
Brief outline of the case
The patent results from a divisional application of EP 06803097 /1 922 044 and was published as WO 2007/030599.
The opponent appealed the decision of maintenance in amended form.
Eventually the patent was revoked as claim 1 as maintained infringed Art 76(1).
Claim 1 reads:
“A wound dressing apparatus (100) comprising:
a composite wound dressing with multiple layers arranged in a superposed relation,
by Daniel X. Thomas
In a recent blog dealing with T 803/17 and T 882/17, I commented on the problem of the hierarchy of legal norms in the EPC system. It is worth noting that in T 882/17 we find a mention of J 14/19, see below.
In recent decisions, some of them, e.g.