by Daniel X. Thomas
The patent pertains to electronic hearing aids and methods for their use.
Brief outline of the case
The joint opponents appealed the decision of the OD to reject the opposition.
The board revoked the patent, since all requests on file were infringing Art 123(2).
The case is interesting in that the board decided to examine ex-officio all requests,
by Daniel X. Thomas
The patent relates to a decorative element and a security document comprising a decorative amendment
Brief outline of the case
The patent was maintained according to AR4 and the opponent appealed.
The board confirmed the allowability of the claims of AR4 which became the MR in appeal.
The board did however find an inconsistency between claims 1 and 6 and the description as maintained.
by Daniel X. Thomas
The patent relates to a minimally invasive heart valve replacement system.
Brief outline of the case
The patent was maintained in amended form according to AR1.
Both proprietor and opponent appealed.
At the end of OP, the proprietor withdrew his appeal and requested maintenance according to AR1f’’ filed during said OP.
by Daniel X. Thomas
The patent relates to a dual-driver vibratory flowmeter.
Brief outline of the case
The application was refused for lack of IS, and the applicant appealed.
With the statement of grounds of appeal, the applicant submitted a MR and AR1, that superseded the sole request subject of the appealed decision.
by Daniel X. Thomas
The patent relates to vapor hydration of a hydrophilic catheter in a package, said catheter being used for intermittent catheterization.
The opponent’s point of view
Documents D10 to D12 should be admitted into the appeal proceedings. D11 and D12 could not have been filed earlier and served to prove the surprising claim interpretation submitted by the proprietor in national infringement proceedings.