by Daniel X. Thomas
The patent was revoked as the OD held that the patent as granted as well as according to the AR1-3 did not meet the requirements of Art 123(2).
The proprietor requested inter alia that the decision under appeal be set aside and the patent be maintained in amended form on the basis of the MR or any of the AR 1 to 4 as filed with the statement of grounds of appeal in that order.
by Daniel X. Thomas
The patent was maintained by the OD on the basis of a request filed during OP. Both proprietor and opponent appealed the decision.
It was in dispute whether an objection of lack of IS about claim 8 of the MR in view of NPL5 and E14 was admissible or not.
The opponent considered it was admissible,
by Daniel X. Thomas
The opposition to EP 2 632 399 was rejected by the OD.
In appeal the BA held that claim 1 as granted as well as AR 1, 3, 3a, 4, 5, 6 were lacking N over D19=US-B-6588428 (not in ISR) or D18=US-A-4143656 (not in ISR). The ISR contained only two A documents.
The proprietor informed the Board that it would not be attending OP shortly before the scheduled date.
by Daniel X. Thomas
Brief outline of the procedure
The proprietor and opponent 1 appealed the decision of the OD to maintain the patent in amended form according to AR2.
Eventually the patent could be maintained in amended form according to AR6 and the case was remitted for adaptation of the description.
The OP
The OP took place on 30.06.2022.
by Daniel X. Thomas
I would like to amend my original statements on both cases as a former lawyer colleague of mine, who I have in high esteem, drew my attention to the following:
As far as the circumstances underlying each case, there seems to be no contradiction between the 2 decisions at stake, at least as far as the ADA and their interpretation are concerned.