by Daniel X. Thomas
The patent relates to a stereolithography technique used to produce three-dimensional objects (additive printing).
Brief outline of the case
The opposition was rejected and the opponent appealed.
During appeal, the opponent filed prior art under Art 54(3), D 8, which was N destroying for claim 1 as granted. This document was admitted under Art 13(1) RPBA.
by Daniel X. Thomas
The patent relates generally to a method for accessing a service and a corresponding device.
Brief outline of the case
The patent was maintained in amended form. The two opponents appealed the decision of the OD. An intervention occurred during appeal.
The MR was deemed lacking IS and the AR was not admitted in the procedure.
by Daniel X. Thomas
The application relates to a visual localisation method for a mobile device.
Brief outline of the case
The application was refused for lack of IS of the MR and AR I-III.
The applicant appealed the refusal.
The board confirmed the refusal although for different reasons than the ED.
by Daniel X. Thomas
Brief outline of the case
The OD rejected the opposition.
The opponent appealed.
By decision T 760/17, the board decided not to admit a series of late-filed AR under Art 13(2) RPBA20. It also decided to revoke the patent for lack of IS of claim 1 as granted and of all AR I-IX which were timely filed.