by Daniel X. Thomas
Brief outline of the case
The application was refused for added matter, lack of clarity and lack of inventive step.
The applicants appealed the refusal decision.
Claim 1 of the MR and AR 1 and 6 were considered infringing Art 123(2).
Claim 1 of each of AR 2 to 5 lacked clarity since the claims defined at least 2 mutually exclusive requirements.
by Daniel X. Thomas
Brief outline of the case
The patent relates to recyclable thermoplastic insulation with improved breakdown strength.
Claim 1 relates to the processes for forming a polymeric composition.
Claim 4 relates to a process for producing a coated conductor.
Claim 16 relates to a coated conductor.
The opponent appealed the decision of the OD to maintain the patent according to a new MR and an adapted description.
by Daniel X. Thomas
Brief outline of the case
The patent results from a divisional application of EP 06803097 /1 922 044 and was published as WO 2007/030599.
The opponent appealed the decision of maintenance in amended form.
Eventually the patent was revoked as claim 1 as maintained infringed Art 76(1).
Claim 1 reads:
“A wound dressing apparatus (100) comprising:
a composite wound dressing with multiple layers arranged in a superposed relation,
by Daniel X. Thomas
In a recent blog dealing with T 803/17 and T 882/17, I commented on the problem of the hierarchy of legal norms in the EPC system. It is worth noting that in T 882/17 we find a mention of J 14/19, see below.
In recent decisions, some of them, e.g.
by Daniel X. Thomas
From time to time parties request correction of the minutes of OP before a deciding body of the EPO. Sometimes they also request
This decision deals with a request for correction of the minutes of OP before a BA.
In this post, requests for recording the statement of a party will also be dealt with.