by Daniel X. Thomas
EP 3 672 361 B1 relates to an induction heating device that clears condensation from a viewing window of a camera.
Claim1 starts with: “A windshield (20) or a cover-glass…..”
Brief outline of the case
The OD considered that the patent as granted was infringing Art 123(2).
by Daniel X. Thomas
EP 3 312 339 B1 relates to gypsum boards suitable for wet or humid areas.
Brief outline of the case
The opposition was rejected and the opponent appealed.
The board held that claim 1 as granted lacked IS. AR 1+2 were not admitted under Art 13(2) RPBA.
by Daniel X. Thomas
EP 2 499 526 A2 has been published as WO2011/ 059929 and relates to a method and apparatus for coupling optical signals with packaged circuits via optical cables and lightguide couplers.
Brief outline of the case
The ED refused the application on the basis of Art 97(2) because of “lack of claims“,
by Daniel X. Thomas
EP 3 716 698 A1 relates to a cross-carrier scheduling activation for a dormant cell.
Brief outline of the case
The ED refused the application for, at least, lack of IS with respect to a MR and 3 AR.
The board confirmed the refusal.
The case is interesting in that it deals with the choice of the CPA when IS is to be denied,
by Daniel X. Thomas
EP 2 139 494 B1 relates to pharmaceutical formulations containing dapaglifozin (Forxiga™) propylene glycol hydrate.
Brief outline of the case
The patent was opposed by 6 opponents and the OD revoked the patent.
The board set aside the OD’s decision as it had committed a SPV.
The proprietor requested a different apportionment of costs which was refused by the board.