by Daniel X. Thomas
Brief outline of the procedure
The application was refused by the ED and the applicant appealed the decision.
For the ED, claim 1 of each of a MR and an AR lacked inventive step. The board raised different objections.
The applicant requested that the appealed decision be set aside and that a patent be granted on the basis of the claims of the MR subject to the appealed decision or,
by Daniel X. Thomas
The opposition to EP 2 632 399 was rejected by the OD.
In appeal the BA held that claim 1 as granted as well as AR 1, 3, 3a, 4, 5, 6 were lacking N over D19=US-B-6588428 (not in ISR) or D18=US-A-4143656 (not in ISR). The ISR contained only two A documents.
The proprietor informed the Board that it would not be attending OP shortly before the scheduled date.
by Daniel X. Thomas
Following T 1989/18 according to which the description does not have to be adapted, T 1444/20 approves T 1989/18 and also quotes R 42(1,c) and R 48(1,c).
The decision of the ED
In the communication under R 71(3) the applicant was informed that the division intended to grant a patent whereby pages 29 to 41 of the description were to be deleted.
by Daniel X. Thomas
Brief outline of the case
The patent relates to a handle portion of a hand-held electric tool, whereby the battery pack has a triangular cross-sectional configuration.
Dependent claim 2 as granted was dependent on claim 1 as granted and claim 3 on claim 2.
During OP before the Board,