by Daniel X. Thomas
The patent relates to an anechoic visco-thermal liner for nacelles of turbo-engines.
Proprietor is a US company.
The opposition was filed by Cabinet Beau de Loménie acting on behalf of Safran Aircraft Engines, a competitor of the proprietor, see below.
Brief outline of the case
Claim 1 as granted was lacking N over O1=EP 1 982 323,
by Daniel X. Thomas
I would like to amend my original statements on both cases as a former lawyer colleague of mine, who I have in high esteem, drew my attention to the following:
As far as the circumstances underlying each case, there seems to be no contradiction between the 2 decisions at stake, at least as far as the ADA and their interpretation are concerned.
by Daniel X. Thomas
In T 71/21 (28.4.2022) the board decided that the opposition fee could not be paid by automatic debit of an account and that form 1038 could not be corrected under R 139.
See my comment:
T 71/21 – Payment of the appeal fee by automatic debit procedure not open to the opponent –
by Daniel X. Thomas
The outline of the case
The opponent filed the notice of appeal electronically, within the required time limit.
The notice of appeal was received with an accompanying letter, Form 1038. This form is generated automatically (among other things) as part of the online fee payment when a debit order is issued to the EPO,