by Daniel X. Thomas
The patent relates to injection devices notably to automatic or semi-automatic pen-type injectors where a rotary drive shaft driven by a torsion spring used for insulin injection.
Brief outline of the case
The opponent appealed the rejection of the opposition.
A late-filed alleged public prior use of an insulin injection pen named GensuPen labelled as D18 was submitted in reaction to the preliminary opinion of the OD was admitted in the opposition proceedings as prima facie relevant,
by Daniel X. Thomas
The application relates to a visual localisation method for a mobile device.
Brief outline of the case
The application was refused for lack of IS of the MR and AR I-III.
The applicant appealed the refusal.
The board confirmed the refusal although for different reasons than the ED.
by Daniel X. Thomas
The patent relates to a process and an apparatus for the cryogenic separation of air in a distillation column system, in which the control of at least one process parameter is performed by a combination of an “ALC control” and an MPC controller.
Brief outline of the procedure
The application was refused as the ED considered that the subject-matter of claims 1 and 6 the subject-matter of claims 1 to 5 of the new MR did not satisfy the requirements of Art 84.
by Daniel X. Thomas
The patent relates to blends of encapsulated biocides with free biocides. In particular, it relates to blends of encapsulated “DCOIT” with free biocides.
The patent also relates to marine antifouling coatings and paints incorporating free biocides and encapsulated DCOIT, and using the free biocides and encapsulated DCOIT in marine antifouling coatings and paints.
by Daniel X. Thomas
The patent relates to the field of orally administrable pharmaceutical dosage units such as soft chews, especially for administration to non-human animals.
Chews comprising pamoic acid or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof can be easily processed in forming machines and therefore facilitates manufacturing such soft chews on an industrial scale.
Brief outline of the case
The patent was revoked as the OD came to the conclusion that claim 1 of the MR filed during opposition was infringing Art 123(2).