by Daniel X. Thomas
Brief outline of the case
The OD decided that the MR was infringing Art 123(2) and maintained the patent according AR1.
The proprietor appealed.
The board found that the MR did not infringe Art 123(2) and decided to remit the case for further prosecution.
The features at sake
Claim 1 (apparatus) of the MR comprised,
by Daniel X. Thomas
The patent relates to a breast tomosynthesis system, whereby the image quality is increased. The whole system allows optimisation of the pictures taken.
Brief outline of the case
The opposition was rejected and the opponent appealed the decision.
The board confirmed the revocation.
The discussion centred on the validity of the priority as the opponent alleged that between the priority and the granted claim,