by Daniel X. Thomas
Brief outline of the procedure
The application was refused for lack of IS. An appeal followed.
In a communication in preparation for the oral proceedings, objections under Art 56, 84 and 123(2) and R 49(10) were raised by the board.
Following the communication of the board, the applicant filed a new request which was admitted under Art 13(2) RPBA20 by the board.
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,