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

The application relates to a vibrating flow device and a method for manufacturing a vibrating flow device.

Brief outline of the case

The applicant appealed the refusal of the application.

The ED considered that that the main and sole request then on file (MR 0) did not meet the requirements of Art 123(2) and 54(1).

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,

Brief outline of the procedure

The opposition was rejected and the opponent appealed.

The grounds of opposition under Art 100(a) were lack of N and IS.

The rejection of the opposition was confirmed by the board.

The board found that none of D1, D4, D5, D6, D7,

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,

Brief outline of the procedure

The OD decided to reject the opposition.

In its preliminary opinion, the Board expressed the view that the subject-matter of claim 1 of the MR and AR I appeared to lack novelty.

In its decision, the board held that claim 1 as granted lacked N over A1=EP 2 142 232,