Source: http://eqe-d.blogspot.com/2012/03/
Timestamp: 2017-10-18 02:03:39
Document Index: 217269457

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art.108', 'Art.108', 'Art.3', 'Art.123', 'Art.54', 'Art.21', 'Art.54', 'Art.84', 'Art.123', 'Art.123', 'Art.128']

DeltaPatents : EQE-D Deltapatents EQE Paper D: March 2012
Posted by Jelle Hoekstra at 1:56 pm 26 comments:
Our answers to DI 2012
Based on input from 3 legal tutors, we think the core part of the answers should be as follows. A real answer would probably require additional comments for full points - anyone think that we are missing something?
Q.1 [5 marks]
• Correction R.140 permitted by EPO of own motion – G8/95
• Correction is retroactive – e.g. T212/88.
• Decision and its notification keep original date.
• So appeal period expires 27/12/11 + 10d + 2m => 6/3/2012 = TODAY [Art.108, R.131(4)]
• File appeal + pay appeal fee (RFees 2(1).11) today – Art.108.
• If withdrawn before end of 4m (7/5/2012 Mon) and before filing grounds: refund of appeal fee R.103(1)(b): still 2 months, so client can use the few weeks he needs to decide.
Q.2 [6 marks]
• Amended R.36 entered into force 1/4/2010.
• Transitional provision: if 24m expires before 1/10/2010: could file new div until 1/10/2010.
• DIV1 (14/12/2009):
- old A.76, R.36(1): pendency of parent EP1 ; old R.36(2): in language of proceedings = EN
• DIV2 (30/9/2009):
- R.36(1)(a): 13/12/09+24m already expired; so could file until 1/10/2010: OK
Parent EP1 was pending (G1/09)
- R.36(2): in language of proceedings or EP1 filing language =EN
• new div: EP1 and DIV2 no longer pending – R.36(1), G1/09. R.36(1)(a) expired.
• DIV1 still pending. New R.36(1)(b) not triggered by partial search report, so cannot be validly filed.
• If examination requested and non-unity maintained in the first R.71(1) communication, will have at least 24m to file new divisional out of DIV1 (or until end of pendency of DIV1).
Q.3 [5 marks]
• file SIS request with IB – PCT R.45bis.1(a). 5/10/10 + 19m => 5/5/12, so still possible
• Request EPO=SISA R.45bis.1(b)(ii), OJ 2010, 304
• Pay SIS fee (RFees2(1).2) and suppl.search handling fee (PCT SoF 2) to IB – R.45bis.3 (a)+(b) and R.45bis.2(a)
o within 1m (R.45bis.3(c), R.45bis.1(a))
o after filing request
• File translation into EN, FR, or GE – R.45bis.1(c)(i); OJ 2010, 304, Art.3(4)+ Annex E(1)
• SIS will be performed on claims as filed, R.45bis.6 so cannot amend; request EPO to search second invention, R.45bis.1(d)
Q.4 [4 marks]
• A1 not in EP-X: late filed claims must have basis in application as filed under Art.123(2) [GL A-III 15]; species A1 cannot be based on genus A ]
• A1 is in PCT1 as filed
• No valid priority – A.87(1) - for EP-X in EP-phase (not same invention): eff.date is 17/11/2010
• In EP-phase, document is Art.54(2): A1 not novel
• Then A1 in EP-X, and priority valid. So novel and patentable.
Q.5 [5 marks]
• AG-IP 9.004; PCT Art.21 + R.48
• Application (CN)
o including claims as filed (CN)
• A.19 amendments (CN) – claims as amended
• A.19 statement (CN)
• R.48.3(c): also in English: ISR (was available), title, abstract, text in the abstract figure(s)
• yes – via website: AG-IP 9.020, R.86(2)(a)
Q.6 [6 marks]
• Priority only claimed from IT1 with inv1, priority valid, effective date: 28/10/10
• Publication of doc D is too late [Art.54(2)], inv1 claim is novel
• Inv2 not disclosed in Inv1, so effective date inv2 claim: 28/10/11
• So D1 novelty-destroying A.54(2) for inv claim 1, unless we can claim priority of IT2
• 16m period for adding prio-claim to IT2 expired 28/2/12 – R.53(2). R.131(4)
• So too late for R.53.
• Exceptionally, it may be possible to request R.139, 1st sentence correction
• Techn.prep. R.67(1) will be completed 28/10/10+18m = 28/4/12 – 5w => 31/3/2012 (OJ 2007, SE3, D.1).
• So have time to correct and EPO has time to include a warning in publication (GL A-V, 3)
• So can still do – need to satisfy EPO that mistake was made – J6/91 (based on same date and unity, obvious should have claimed prio in subsequent application)
• If priority added: inv2 has eff.date= f.d. IT2, D1 not A.54(2) and inv2 claim=novel.
Q.7 [4 marks]
• Diagnostic methods may be excluded from patentability – A.53(c) – if they comprise all steps: deductive decision phase, data collection and analysis (tissue sample in analysing liquid); interactions with human body (biopsy) – G1/04 hn4.
• So it could be patentable if method of diagnosing did not include the deductive decision phase.
• Diagnostic method is certainly excluded from patentability if it includes step which can be seen as a surgery [G 1/07 hn.2a]
• Biopsy of the liver is an invasive surgical method = extracting tissue sample from liver entails substantial health risk, even if carried out by the medical practitioner indicated – G1/07,hn.1.
• Taking tissue sample is not essential - Art.84, so biopsy step can be left out of claim, and the method would not be excluded (it would be patentable)
• This also removes the human body interaction step, so exclusion under G1/04 is made impossible
Q.8 [5 marks]
• Improved subject-matter not in EP1 as filed, so its inclusion in EP1 violates Art.123(2) => no valid protection via EP1 possible
• Improved subject-matter is in EP2 as filed, so no Art.123(2) problem for EP2
• As EP1 already published (on 10/3/10), response to OA became publicly available shortly after submission (in June 2011) - Art.128(4)- and therefore A.54(2) against EP2 (filed 9/12/2011).
• So, novelty destroying => no valid protection via EP.
Posted by Pete Pollard at 3:12 pm 16 comments:
Labels: D paper, EQE 2012, eqe2012
Pre-Exam posts all moved to Pre-Exam blog
All pre-exam posts are now available here:
http://pre-exam.blogspot.com/
Posted by Pete Pollard at 3:06 pm No comments:
Labels: eqe2012, mock pre-exam