by Daniel X. Thomas
The application has already been discussed under the heading “Convergence of requests”
The general part of the post and the outline of the case will not be repeated here.
For the outline of the case, please refer to the parallel post under T 3097/19.
Inventive step of claim 1 of the MR + AR1 and 2
As the applicant did not reply in substance to the objections raised in the annex to the summons,
by Daniel X. Thomas
Brief outline of the procedure
The present application concerns digital communication systems in which communication data is transmitted via interleaving using error correction.
According to the application as filed, the invention provides “for a very efficient and reliable use of memory for error-correcting code interleaving” (paragraph [0011]).
The applicant appealed the refusal decision of the ED that the sole request was not allowable view of Art 84 and 123(2).
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.