Brief outline of the case
The opponent appealed the rejection of its opposition.
In its decision the board held that claims 1 (method) and 9 (device) as granted lacked IS over D3=DE 10 2008 019 605+D1=US 4 947 617.
CASELAW-EPO - reviews of EPO Boards of Appeal decisions
T 2074/22 – Even if a claim is designed as “non-therapeutic” it might not escape the prohibition under Art 53(c) and can infringe Art 123(2)
by Daniel X. Thomas
The patent relates to an agent for use in the prophylaxis or improvement of frailty in elderly person.
Brief outline of the case
The OD decided that claims 1 and 11 of the main request did not meet the requirements of Article 123(2). The same applied to AR1-7. Cl5 of AR8 was lacking clarity.
T 709/22 – A different, but correct, way to admit and discuss “carry-over” requests
by Daniel X. Thomas
Patent EP 3 027 900 B1 relates to temporary maintenance of wind turbine blades.
Brief outline of the case
The OD decided to maintain the patent according to AR5. The opponent appealed.
The board considered that claim1 as maintained lacked N and AR 6-7 were lacking IS.
The board decided maintenance according to AR8.
T 261/22 – Be clear in your statements - Objections not maintained
by Daniel X. Thomas
The patent EP 3 219 375 B1 relates to vacuum cleaner filter bags made from waste products from the textile industry.
Brief outline of the case
The OD decided maintenance according to AR7.
Both proprietor and opponent appealed.
The board confirmed the OD’s decision that the MR=as granted and AR1-6 lacked N over D11=EP 0 960 645,
T 426/22 – Inserting “preferably” in a claim does not necessarily infringe Art 123(2)
by Daniel X. Thomas
Brief outline of the case
The OD decided that the MR was infringing Art 123(2) and maintained the patent according AR1.
The proprietor appealed.
The board found that the MR did not infringe Art 123(2) and decided to remit the case for further prosecution.
The features at sake
Claim 1 (apparatus) of the MR comprised,