Source: http://dp-patentlaw.blogspot.com/2016/01/
Timestamp: 2018-02-18 01:03:34
Document Index: 757239759

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 19', 'Art. 108', 'Art. 111', 'Art. 12', 'Art. 12', 'Art. 100', 'Art. 123', 'Art. 123', 'Art. 76', 'Art. 52', 'Art. 52', 'Art. 52', 'Art. 14']

DeltaPatents : Case Law DeltaPatents EPO Case Law: January 2016
T 1254/11 Enlarging and reducing the opposition division
In this decision the board of appeal dealt with enlarging and reducing the opposition division and changing the chairman. It reviews the case law, discusses who and in which composition should take the decision and whether or not such decisions should be public. In this case, the board concludes that the opposition division made substantial procedural violations but was lawfully enlarged and, at a later stage, lawfully reduced again. The board therefore decides not the remit the case back to the opposition division. The board also decides not to refer the case to the Enlarged Board of Appeal but instead more or less answers the raised issues.
1. An opposition division enlarged to four members pursuant to Article 19(2) EPC 1973 can in principle be reduced again to three members. It is for the four-person panel to decide on the reduction. In this respect the board concurs with T 990/06. In deciding on the reduction, the opposition division consisting of four members must properly exercise its discretion. (See point 1.4)
2. The board assumes arguendo that the fact that no decision to enlarge nor a decision to reduce the opposition division was added to the publicly available file and the fact that the appointment of the new chairman could only be traced from the internal register of the EPO both constitute fundamental deficiencies of the proceedings before the opposition division.
However, different from the situation in T 990/06, it is possible to determine from the file that the division was lawfully enlarged and, at a later stage, lawfully reduced again. (See points 1.6 and 1.7)
The board considers that these circumstances constitute special reasons for not remitting the case within the meaning of Article 11 RPBA. The aforementioned fundamental deficiencies assumed arguendo are of a formal nature. They would, in the board's view, not justify substantially delaying the proceedings. (See point 1.9)
Geplaatst door Jelle Hoekstra op 14:42 No comments :
Labels: Art. 19(2) EPC , composition of the opposition division , enlarging the opposition division , reducing the opposition division
Can you puzzle the claimed range from multiple disclosed ranges?
The claims in this Opposition appeal contained ranges that were taken by combining ranges in the description.
Claims 1 and 4 of the main request contained the ranges 'below 35°'C and 'about 26°C to 32°C'. Although these ranges are not explicitly disclosed, numerous other ranges are disclosed which might be combined to obtain the claimed ranges.
For example, can you get 'below 35°'C from the disclosed ranges "below 37°C" and "30°C to 35°C"? The board thinks not. In part because the qualifiers 'below' and 'about' are not disclosed correctly for the combined ranges.
The proprietor appellant (Appellant I) did not attend oral proceedings or respond in substance to the preliminary opinion. In response, the board canceled the oral proceedings.
Geplaatst door Sander van Rijnswou op 12:59 No comments :
Labels: added subject matter , ranges
Geplaatst door Nico Cordes op 08:00 No comments :
When filing the appeal against the decision from the Opposition Division, the appellant filed three new sets of amended claims and arguments as to their allowability, but did not give a reasoning why the appealed decision was wrong. Without this necessary link between the contested decision and the statement of grounds, the appeal was held inadmissible by the Board.
Geplaatst door Roel van Woudenberg op 08:30 5 comments :
Labels: Art. 108 EPC , Art. 111(1) EPC , Art. 12(2) RPBA , Art. 12(4) RPBA , G 1/99 , G 9/91 , inadmissible appeal , Rule 101(1) EPC , Rule 99(2) EPC
T 108/12 A divisional application in the inescapable trap
The application of this appeal procedure is a divisional application. The Opponent argued during the Opposition procedure and during the Appeal Procedure that the divisional application extends beyond the disclosure of the mother application. This case shows once again that one has to be careful in changing something in the divisional application. The details of this case are a little bit mathermatical and the reasoning of the Board is strongly based on what would the skilled person in the field of security/encryption consider to be the teaching of the original application. One point of discussion is: Does the mother application provide enough support for f(α)=f'(α) (as claimed in the divisional application), if the mother application teaches f(α)=f'(α)=α? Another point of discussion was: Does the mother application provide enough support for "a specific signature is kept private" (as claimed in the divisional application) while the mother application discloses that, in certain embodiments, the signature is not transmitted.
Ok, there were problems with support of the divisional application in the mother application, but the proprietor finally ends up in the inescapable trap. It is somehow sad to end up in the inescapable trap.
Geplaatst door Jeroen Willekens op 12:29 4 comments :
Labels: Art. 100(c) EPC , Art. 123(2) EPC , Art. 123(3) EPC , Art. 76(1) EPC , divisional application , G 1/93 , inescapable trap , intermediate generalization , T 461/05
Geplaatst door Guus Hateboer op 14:08 9 comments :
Geplaatst door Jelle Hoekstra op 15:13 9 comments :
No instructions were provided with this blood orange
This opposition appeal concerns a blood treatment machine which is distinguished from the prior art by displaying "operating instructions for readying the machine for use" and at least two "pictographs which represent configurations of the machine correlated to the operating instructions".
These features are on the one hand presentation of information but on the other hand are related to technical interaction with a machine. Unfortunately for the proprietor these technical aspects do not save his claim.
I find the discussion also interesting because the claim is close to claim 3 of EQE Paper C of 2008 (pdf). Already then candidates who wanted to become an attorney had to argue that providing novel instructions together with a device does not render the claim inventive. Nevertheless, so many years later the discussion of this problem by the board shows that this question is not as straightforward as might at first glance seem.
Labels: Art. 52 EPC , Art. 52(2) EPC , Art. 52(2)(d) EPC , business method , presentation of information , T 553/02
Geplaatst door Sander van Rijnswou op 13:08 3 comments :
Labels: Art. 14(2) EPC , correction of translation , translations
Geplaatst door Roel van Woudenberg op 09:00 3 comments :