by Daniel X. Thomas
The patent relates to an arrangement for subsea cooling of power electronic cells.
Brief outline of the case
At the end of the OP before the ED, the latter decided that a patent could be granted on the basis of AR2. The ED issued a corresponding communication under R 71(3) in which it was explained why the higher ranking requests were not allowable.
by Daniel X. Thomas
The patent which is based on a divisional application EP 2 212 067 and relates to a conveyor drive for food slicing machine.
Brief outline of the case
The patent was maintained according to AR 0. Both proprietor and opponent appealed.
A notice of intervention was filed during appeal and considered admissible.
by Daniel X. Thomas
The patent relates to a “support for pivotable mounting of the axle guide of a vehicle axle”.
Brief outline of the case
The proprietor and the opponent appealed the OD’s decision to maintain the patent in amended form according to AR II.
Claim 1 as granted lacked N over D5=DE 10 2006 044 598 or D6=WO 03/062663.
by Daniel X. Thomas
The patent relates to an improvement of conventional wort boiling techniques in beer brewing processes.
Brief outline of the case
The opponent appealed the rejection of its opposition.
The opponent requested that the appealed decision be set aside and that the patent be revoked.
The proprietor requested as MR that the patent be maintained as granted or maintained in amended form according to AR1.
by Daniel X. Thomas
The patent relates to a tray-sealing-machine.
Brief history of the case
For the OD, claim 1 as granted was lacking N over a Public Prior Use of the tray-sealing-machine CFS Palazzolo SPA STAR2HS. The OD considered the PPU substantiated and proven, even without hearing a witness offered by the opponent.
The patent was maintained in amended form according to AR2 and both proprietor and opponent appealed the decision of the OD.