The application relates to biometric authentication using vein patterns of e.g. a palm or a finger. The positions of the vein pattern for matching are normally defined in respect of the outline of the considered region, which requires the acquisition of the entire region. For speed reasons it is desired to perform vein authentication using partial patterns.
Updates on EPC, PCT, EPO case law and the e-EQE
T 728/21 – G 2/21 also applies when it comes to sufficiency
by Daniel X. Thomas
The patent relates to a “Tablet formulation of N-[2,4-bis(1,1-dimethylethyl)-5-hydroxyphenyl]-1,4-dihydro-4-oxoquinoline-3-carboxamide for use in the treatment of cystic fibrosis”.
Brief outline of the case
The OD decided maintenance according to AR 16 as the claims as granted and AR 1-15 where lacking sufficiency.
The opponent appealed the decision of the OD.
T 1902/21 – It is of utmost importance to correctly define a norm/standard with its version/date of issuance in a patent specification
by Daniel X. Thomas
The patent relates to a vacuum-cleaning apparatus comprising a vacuum cleaner and a filter bag made of non-woven fabric.
Brief outline of the case
The OD decided that the patent as granted as well as AR1 suffered a lack of sufficiency. The patent could however be maintained according to AR2.
The only appellant was the proprietor.
T 1137/20 – On the difficulties of drafting disclaimers – Measurement method in a piece of prior art under Art 54(3)?
by Daniel X. Thomas
The patent relates to an Al-Zn-coated steel sheet that exhibits excellent corrosion resistance after painting.
Brief outline of the case
Claim 1 as granted was lacking N over D4=EP 2 957 648, prior art under Art 54(3) which was not mentioned in the SESR.
The patent was maintained in amended form according to AR1.
T 1011/21 – Some problems with the claim as maintained – Is sufficiency really given?
by Daniel X. Thomas
The patent relates to the use of hot-melt adhesive for the collation of containers and bottles for beverages or food into shelf ready packs of various items.
Brief outline of the case
The opponent appealed the rejection of the opposition.
In its communication under Art 15(1) RPBA21, the board expressed the opinion that claim 1 as granted lacked IS over D1=US5331038,