by Daniel X. Thomas
The decision is interesting in that the board found the Guidelines inconsistent with case law when it comes to Interlocutory Revision under Art 109.
Brief outline of the case
The applicant appealed the decision of the ED that claim 1 of the sole request was lacking N over D5, PA under Art 54(3).
by Daniel X. Thomas
Brief outline of the procedure
The OD decided to reject the opposition.
In its preliminary opinion, the Board expressed the view that the subject-matter of claim 1 of the MR and AR I appeared to lack novelty.
In its decision, the board held that claim 1 as granted lacked N over A1=EP 2 142 232,
by Daniel X. Thomas
Brief outline of the procedure
The application was refused by the ED and the applicant appealed the decision.
For the ED, claim 1 of each of a MR and an AR lacked inventive step. The board raised different objections.
The applicant requested that the appealed decision be set aside and that a patent be granted on the basis of the claims of the MR subject to the appealed decision or,
by Daniel X. Thomas
The opponent appealed the decision to maintain the patent according to a MR filed during the opposition procedure.
Contrary to the OD, the board decided that claim 1 of the MR (as maintained) lacked IS.
Admissibility of AR 6
The filing of AR 6 with the reply to the grounds of appeal,
by Daniel X. Thomas
The proprietor appealed the OD’s decision to revoke EP. 2 880 138.
The choice of the CPA
The patent (see paragraph [0014]) seeks to provide a lubricating oil composition for internal combustion engines which not only affords good wear resistance and fuel economy but also exhibits good emulsion stability.
If the lubricating oil composition has high emulsion stability,