by Daniel X. Thomas
Brief outline of the case
The opponent appealed the decision of the OD to maintain the patent in amended form.
The opponent argued lack of sufficiency and lack of IS.
Some objections only raised in appeal were not admitted by the board.
At the end of the OP before the board,
by Daniel X. Thomas
Brief outline of the procedure
Both proprietor and opponent appealed the decision of the OD to maintain the patent according to AR1.
Claim 8 as granted was held to infringe Art 123(2) so that the patent could not be maintained as granted.
The proprietor filed new AR in response to the opponent’s statement of grounds of appeal,
by Daniel X. Thomas
A publication on the home page of the EPO of 15.06.2022 deals with op by ViCo
https://www.epo.org/news-events/news/2022/20220615.html
It was made clear that “oral proceedings before examining divisions will as a rule continue to be held by VICO“.
In this communication it has been added that “if there are serious reasons against holding them by VICO.
by Daniel X. Thomas
The patent was maintained in amended form by the OD. The proprietor appealed the decision.
For the OD, claim 1 as granted lacked inventive step over specific documents submitted by the opponent.
The proprietor claimed that his right to be heard has been violated on two occurrences:
– he could not dispute the common general knowledge used by the opposition division;