Brief outline of the case
The opponent appealed the rejection of its opposition.
In its decision the board held that claims 1 (method) and 9 (device) as granted lacked IS over D3=DE 10 2008 019 605+D1=US 4 947 617.
Updates on EPC, PCT, EPO case law and the e-EQE
T 2074/22 – Even if a claim is designed as “non-therapeutic” it might not escape the prohibition under Art 53(c) and can infringe Art 123(2)
by Daniel X. Thomas
The patent relates to an agent for use in the prophylaxis or improvement of frailty in elderly person.
Brief outline of the case
The OD decided that claims 1 and 11 of the main request did not meet the requirements of Article 123(2). The same applied to AR1-7. Cl5 of AR8 was lacking clarity.
T 709/22 – A different, but correct, way to admit and discuss “carry-over” requests
by Daniel X. Thomas
Patent EP 3 027 900 B1 relates to temporary maintenance of wind turbine blades.
Brief outline of the case
The OD decided to maintain the patent according to AR5. The opponent appealed.
The board considered that claim1 as maintained lacked N and AR 6-7 were lacking IS.
The board decided maintenance according to AR8.
T 419/21 – Conditional withdrawal of an appeal
by Daniel X. Thomas
EP 3 288 141 relates to an automated battery storage system and power plant for the generation of electric power, stabilisation of the grid and provision of reserve energy.
Brief outline of the case
The applicant appealed the decision of the ED refusing the application for infringement of Art 123(2).
T 1639/21 – Synergy and inventive step – Not necessarily linked
by Daniel X. Thomas
The patent relates to a mRNA/anti-PD-1 combination vaccine comprising an isolated mRNA comprising an open reading frame coding for an antigen and an antagonistic antibody directed against PD-1.
Brief outline of the case
The OD found that a new MR filed during opposition was lacking N over D1 prior art under Art 54(3).