by Daniel X. Thomas
EP 3 054 066 B1 relates to a fence structure.
Brief outline of the case
The patent was maintained according to AR5 and the opponent appealed.
Claim 1 as maintained lacked IS over D16, figuring on the ESR, in combination with CGK.
As the opponent’s objections against AR1 filed in appeal were late filed and not admitted under Art 13(2) RPBA,
by Daniel X. Thomas
EP 2 178 814 B1 relates to a method for producing fluorinated olefins.
Brief outline of the case
The patent was revoked by the OD and the proprietor appealed.
OP were rescheduled by the board to 10.10.2024, but maintained as in-person OP.
In a communication under Art 15(1) RPBA the board indicated that the appeal was likely to be dismissed.
by Daniel X. Thomas
EP 3 625 385 B1 relates to an optimised compression bandage in the form of a knitted fabric obtained by warp knit technology, resulting in a 3D bandage.
Brief outline of the case
The patent was revoked by the OD for insufficiency of disclosure, and the proprietor appealed, claiming that the OD had committed a SPV.
by Daniel X. Thomas
EP 3 196 945 B1 relates to a solar cell.
Brief outline of the case
The OD found that claim 3 of a new MR=MRn was lacking IS over D1+ D5. The same applied to AR1.
The OD decided maintenance according to AR2
The proprietor and opponent 2 appealed.
by Daniel X. Thomas
EP 3 472 513 B1 relates to a bottom-supported boiler.
Brief outline of the case
The opposition was rejected and the opponent appealed.
The board held claim 1 as granted lacking IS over D1 + D9, D1+ D12 or D1+D14. None of those documents were mentioned in the ISR established by the EPO.