by Daniel X. Thomas
EP 3 589 420 B1 relates to a system and method for performing predictive maintenance on a paint finishing system.
Brief outline of the case
The patent was maintained according AR17, itself derived from AR14.
AR 17 was filed during the OP before the OD as a modified version of the then AR 14.
by Daniel X. Thomas
The present blog entry does not have the pretence to tell first instance divisions or the boards what should be done in case of a discrepancy between claims and description. It has even less the pretence to tell a post-grant court how it should interpret claims.
It is merely an attempt to come up with a systematic analysis and to deal with cases in which the description contains statements which lead to the conclusion that the claim wording could have a different interpretation in view of the disclosure in the description compared to that of the claim.
by Daniel X. Thomas
EP 2 678 436 B1 relates to a method for preventing bacterial infection in a rmentation process by using performic acid.
Brief outline of the case
The OD decided maintenance according to AR7. Proprietor and opponent appealed.
During OP before the board, the proprietor withdrew his appeal.
by Daniel X. Thomas
EP 3 325 559 B1 relates to a dispersant effect on aluminium pigments, specifically VMP (Vacuum Metalized Pigments) pigments.
Brief outline of the case
The opponent appealed the decision to maintain the patent according to AR1.
The board held that the MR=claim as maintained lacked IS lacked.
by Daniel X. Thomas
EP 3 296 282 B1 relates to a method for producing hydrohalofluoroolefins.
Brief outline of the case
The OD decided maintenance according to AR3. The opponent appealed.
The proprietor filed with the reply to the grounds of appeal AR 3, 3a, 4, 4a, 5 and 5a. AR3 is the highest ranked request.