by Daniel X. Thomas
Application EP 2 627 197 relates to optimised nutritional formulations.
Brief outline of the case
The application was refused and the applicant appealed the decision
The board confirmed the refusal.
Claim 1 of the MR contravened the requirement of Art 123(2).
The same applied to claim 1 of AR1.
by Daniel X. Thomas
EP 2 682 491 B1 relates to a hot work tool steel having improved toughness, and a process of producing the same.
Brief outline of the case
The OD decided maintenance according to AR1.
The opponent appealed.
The board held that claim 1 as amended infringed Art 123(2) and that the description could not alter this conclusion as the claim was clear in itself.
by Daniel X. Thomas
EP 3 441 997 B1 relates to a safety switch device for safe activation/deactivation of at least one electric machine.
Brief outline of the case
The opposition was rejected and the opponent appealed.
The board held that claim 1 as granted was infringing Art 123(2). AR1 was not admitted under Art 13(2) RPBA.
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,
by Daniel X. Thomas
Application EP3364729 relates to the improvement of heat dissipation on a printed circuit board (PCB).
Brief outline of the case
The application was refused for lack of IS and lack of clarity.
The applicant appealed.
In appeal, the MR was not allowable under Art 123(2) and AR 1 and 2 not admitted under Art 13(2) and 13(1) RPBA.