Updates on EPC, PCT, EPO case law and the e-EQE

The patent relates to powdered nutritional formulations including a dryblended plant protein. At least a portion of the dryblended plant protein has been spray dried prior to being dryblended into the powdered nutritional formulation.

The decision is interesting in that the board has looked at case law and has interpreted the legal provisions relating to late-filed requests.

The patent relates to acoustic elements formed of air laid mineral fibres and their production.

Brief outline of the case

The opponent appealed the rejection of the opposition by the OD.

In appeal, the opponent requested that the decision of the OD be set aside and the patent be revoked.

Brief outline of the case

The OD decided that:

• Claim 1 as granted lack N over D4=US 5,565,528 (Not in the ISR/EPO).
• AR1 was not admitted in the procedure.
• AR2 lacked of IS over CPA=D18=WO 02/22767 (Not in the ISR/EPO) + D21= Calculation of the proprietor based on D18 filed during OP before the OD
• AR3 was allowable.

Brief outline of the case

The proprietor and the opponent appealed the OD’s decision to maintain the patent in amended form according to AR3 filed during the OP before the OD.

The opposed patent relates to a hearing system.

The appellant/opponent requested that the decision under appeal be set aside and that the patent be revoked.

When revising my presentations on procedural aspects in opposition in order to take into account T 1842/18, I came across T 184/17.

https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t170184eu1.html

T 184/17 takes a contrary stance to T 1042/18.

In Point 4.3 of the reasons, the board asked itself whether the new objection of lack of IS still falls under the principle as expressed in G10/91,