by Daniel X. Thomas
T 2194/19 was already commented in this blog, on the adaptation of the description. The case is interesting for another reason. The proprietor suggested to refer a number of questions to the EBA about the relationship between Art 69 and 123(3).
The proprietor’s point of view
The proprietor submitted that the scope of protection of granted claim 1 must at least include the “Third Embodiment”
by Daniel X. Thomas
The patent relates to articles of apparel that provide enhanced body position sensory information to the wearer.
Brief outline of the case
The OD decided maintenance according to the MR=original AR4.
The board decided that claim 1 as maintained lacked N over A9/A9t=JP-A-2004-263362, not mentioned in the ISR established by the EPO.