by Daniel X. Thomas
I apologise in advance to the readers as the present post is rather long, but deserves it in view of the topic dealt with.
In the present case, no bibliographical data are directly available on the front page of the decision. The application number, EP 14811009, was however disclosed in Point I of the Facts and Submissionswhich reads:
“The applicant is a physical person residing in the USA.
by Daniel X. Thomas
The patent is directed to bicycles and, more particularly, to an apparatus for adjusting a position of a bicycle control device, in fact a bicycle derailleur that moves to a plurality of operating positions
Brief outline of the case
Claim 1 as granted was lacking N over O2=EP 1 426 284,
by Daniel X. Thomas
The application relates to methods and systems for performing file transfers across different domains between virtual machines when at least one of these machines is untrusted.
Brief outline of the case
The ED decided, among other things, that the subject-matter of independent claims 1 and 8 of the MR and of AR1 lacked IS over the prior art disclosed in document D5 and that claim 1 of the MR did not comply with Art 84.
by Daniel X. Thomas
The patent relates to an Al-Zn-coated steel sheet that exhibits excellent corrosion resistance after painting.
Brief outline of the case
Claim 1 as granted was lacking N over D4=EP 2 957 648, prior art under Art 54(3) which was not mentioned in the SESR.
The patent was maintained in amended form according to AR1.
by Daniel X. Thomas
The patent relates to the use of hot-melt adhesive for the collation of containers and bottles for beverages or food into shelf ready packs of various items.
Brief outline of the case
The opponent appealed the rejection of the opposition.
In its communication under Art 15(1) RPBA21, the board expressed the opinion that claim 1 as granted lacked IS over D1=US5331038,