by Daniel X. Thomas
Brief outline of the procedure
The application was refused for lack of clarity. The applicant appealed the decision.
The ED held that independent claim 1 was not clear. In particular, in feature [1.8] the term “fluorescence data” was undefined, and, consequently, the step of “generating multicomponent data” was not clear.
The board confirmed the lack of clarity for the MR and the AR1 on file.
by Daniel X. Thomas
The patent was maintained in amended form by the OD. The proprietor appealed the decision.
For the OD, claim 1 as granted lacked inventive step over specific documents submitted by the opponent.
The proprietor claimed that his right to be heard has been violated on two occurrences:
– he could not dispute the common general knowledge used by the opposition division;