EP 2 741 400 B1 relates to a motor rotor and a motor having same.
Brief outline of the case
The opponent withdrew its opposition before the decision of the OD
The OD revoked the patent and the proprietor appealed.
Updates on EPC, PCT, EPO case law and the e-EQE
T 1558/22 – Amendment under Art 13(2) RPBA and correction of an error under R 139
by Daniel X. Thomas
The patent relates to a method for controlling and/or monitoring a compressor system as well as a compressor system comprising one or more compressors.
Brief outline of the case
The opposition was rejected and the opponent appealed.
The board decided that claims 1, 13, 14 as granted lacked IS over D1=US 2007/0005805 +D4: US RE40,817 E.
T 433/21 – Withdrawal of appeal – Declaration of withdrawal cannot be corrected under R 139
by Daniel X. Thomas
The application relates to a “Slurry for Treatment of Oxyanion Contamination in Water”
Brief outline of the case
The application was refused and the applicant appealed.
The Board issued a rather negative communication, as it concluded that none of the requests on file appeared to be allowable.
T 1877/21 – R 139 cannot be used to insert a missing page of the description at filing
by Daniel X. Thomas
The application relates to an alkali metal super ionic conducting ceramic and is a divisional application of EP 10792537/EP 2 445 846.
Brief outline of the case
The application was refused by the ED and the applicant appealed this decision.
The ED found that the introduction into the application as filed of page 7 of the parent application could not be considered a correction within the meaning of R 139 and therefore infringed Art 123(2).
T 255/22 – Request for correction of a decision or of the minutes of OP before a first instance division – No competence of the boards of appeal
by Daniel X. Thomas
The patent relates to a stair tread element, stair renovation ornament, kit and method.
Brief outline of the case
The OD division issued a decision maintaining the patent in amended form (“main decision”, dated 30 November 2021). A separate appeal was filed by the appellant against the main decision;