Updates on EPC, PCT, EPO case law and the e-EQE

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,

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,

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The patent was revoked for lack of novelty, whereby the OD followed T 990/96.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,

Brief outline of the procedure

The appellant/opponent appealed the OD’s decision to reject the opposition.

By letter dated 29.06.22, the opponent requested that the OP be held in person instead of by ViCo.

Opponent’s representative is based in Munich. Respondent’s/proprietor’s opponent is based in Wiesbaden.

The board decided on 21.07.2022 to hold the OP by ViCo.

Brief outline of the procedure

The application was refused for lack of clarity. The applicant appealed the decision.

The ED held that independent claim 1 was not clear. In particular, in feature [1.8] the term “fluorescence data” was undefined, and, consequently, the step of “generating multicomponent data” was not clear.

The board confirmed the lack of clarity for the MR and the AR1 on file.