by Daniel X. Thomas
The present publication will be very long, but it appears worth it.
The application relates to semiconductor packaging and die architecture.
Brief outline of the case
The applicant appealed the refusal decision of the ED.
In a communication under R 71(3), the ED informed the applicant of its intention to grant a patent based on AR4 (labelled “AR3”).
by Daniel X. Thomas
The patent related to a cold/hot water supply apparatus
Brief outline of the case
The patent was revoked by the OD and the proprietor appealed.
The OD found that Art 100(c) prejudiced the maintenance of the patent as granted, that the subject-matter of claim 1 of any of AR 1 to 6 did not comply with Art 123(2),
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.
by Daniel X. Thomas
The application relates to a method and a system for generating an animated electrophysiological map, for example for visualising cardiac timing information on the surface of a three-dimensional heart model
Brief outline of the case
The application was refused by the ED for lack of N, and of IS as obiter dictum,
by Daniel X. Thomas
The patent relates to an electric toothbrush.
Brief outline of the procedure
The patent was maintained according to an AR filed late during during the OP before the OD.
The proprietor and the opponent appealed this decision.
Late filed objections under Art 84 were admitted under Art 12(6) RPBA20.