Updates on EPC, PCT, EPO case law and the e-EQE

EP 3 441 375 B1 relates to laminated glass used as head-up display.

Brief outline of the case

The OD held that claim 1 as granted lacked N over D6=WO 2017/176452 or D7=US 2010/0314900. The same applied to AR1-4. Cl1 of AR5 lack N over D6.

EP 3 466 240 B1 relates to a method for operating a self-propelled agricultural working machine.

Brief outline of the case

The OD decided that claim  as granted and of AR1 lacked N under Art 54(3) over D7=EP 3 299 995.

Rarely a decision of the EBA has attracted so many comments, many of which have been highly critical. I have commented G 1/25 in my blog.

G 1/25 has been commented in IPKat, in different place, e.g. here and here.

EP 3 553 096 B1 relates to a polypropylene composition

Brief outline of the case

The OD decided maintenance according to a new MR (MRn).

D12=Declaration of Friedrich Berger dated 26.05.2021 was filed in opposition.

The opponent appealed.

The board dismissed the appeal.

The questions referred in T 0697/22 were the following:

Question 1

If the claims of a European patent are amended during opposition proceedings or opposition-appeal proceedings, and the amendment introduces an inconsistency between the amended claims and the description of the patent, is it necessary,