by Daniel X. Thomas
I have no problems whatsoever if people publish comments using a pseudo. This is quite normal and as such not objectionable in the slightest.
However, considering the association of two pseudos as a breach of confidentiality, as it happened on this blog cannot be taken seriously. No person is endangered in any way.
by Daniel X. Thomas
The application relates to a method and systems for localizing an oral cleaning device within a user’s mouth, i.e. localizing a toothbrush in a user’s mouth.
Brief outline of the case
The present application is a divisional application from EP 16784579/3 244 827.
The ED had decided, inter alia,
by Daniel X. Thomas
The disclosure relates to a lime producing technology, and in particular, relates to a powder lime calcining system.
Brief outline of the case
The opponent appealed the rejection of the opposition.
The board confirmed the rejection of the opposition.
The case is interesting in that the board made clear that access to a site is not the prerequisite for a public prior use (PPU).
by Daniel X. Thomas
The patent relates to prodrugs of phosphonate nucleotide analogues and methods for selecting and making same.
Brief outline of the case
The patent results from a divisional application of EP01961695 / EP 1 301 519.
The OD decided maintenance according to AR 6.
All three opponents appealed this decision.
by Daniel X. Thomas
The patent relates to a battery driven lawn mower.
Brief outline of the case
The patent was maintained according to AR 6.
Both opponents appealed.
The board held that claim 1 of AR 6 was lacking IS over D2=DE 195 28 167 with common general knowledge.
AR 11a,