by Daniel X. Thomas
Brief outline of the case
AR1c was filed in response to the board’s communication pursuant to Art 15(1) RPBA20. Hence, its admittance is in principle subject to Art 13(2) RPBA20.
The single method claim of this request is identical to method claim 1 of AR 1b pending during the opposition proceedings and “maintained”
by Daniel X. Thomas
Brief outline of the procedure
The USPTO decided to restore the right of priority based on the finding that failure to file the international application within the priority period had been unintentional.
The Receiving Section refused the request for restoration of the right of priority pursuant to R 49ter.2 PCT.
The applicant appealed this decision.
by Daniel X. Thomas
When revising my presentations on procedural aspects in opposition in order to take into account T 1842/18, I came across T 184/17.
https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t170184eu1.html
T 184/17 takes a contrary stance to T 1042/18.
In Point 4.3 of the reasons, the board asked itself whether the new objection of lack of IS still falls under the principle as expressed in G10/91,
by Daniel X. Thomas
Brief outline of the procedure
The opposition was rejected and the opponent appealed.
The grounds of opposition under Art 100(a) were lack of N and IS.
The rejection of the opposition was confirmed by the board.
The board found that none of D1, D4, D5, D6, D7,
by Daniel X. Thomas
Brief outline of the procedure
The patent was revoked for lack of novelty, whereby the OD followed T 990/96.
The proprietor appealed.
The BA followed T 1085/13 and considered that the subject-matter of claim 1 was novel over D1-D3 and D15.
The BA remitted for further prosecution,