by Daniel X. Thomas
Today was the big day. The OP in case G 1/24 took place. The OP was streamed to the public.
The EBA was really silent during the OP, and only one question was put to the opponent.
A condensed look at the OP and at the position of the different payers
As far as the position of the parties and of the president is concerned,
by Daniel X. Thomas
EP 3 341 031 A1 published as WO 2017/040321 relates to a system and method for fluid sterilisation.
Brief outline of the case
The application has been refused by the ED.
The applicant failed to appeal the decision in due time.
The request for re-establishment failed as “all due care required by the circumstances”
by Daniel X. Thomas
EP 3 400 908 B1 relates to artificial valve prostheses.
It results from a divisional application of EP 2 478 872 and EP 2 020 958.
Brief outline of the case
The patent was revoked by the OD.
The MR=as granted and AR 1-10 infringed Art 76(1).
by Daniel X. Thomas
EP 3 456 844 B1 relates resolving genome fractions using polyphormism counts in order to detect chromosomal abnormality, aneuploidy, and aberration from blood samples in free floating foetal DNA.
EP 3 456 844 B1 is a divisional of EP 3 078 752 and of EP 2 697 392.
Brief outline of the case
The opposition was rejected and the opponent appealed.
by Daniel X. Thomas
EP 3 474 205 A1 relates to the energy efficient delivery of mail items.
Brief outline of the case
The application was refused for lack of IS and lack of clarity.
The board confirmed the refusal.
In the present entry we will concentrate on the MR.
Further prior art cited by the board
Since D1 to D3 cited in the examination proceedings disclose few details of claim 1 and these documents appeared unsuitable as CPA,