Source: https://dp-patentlaw.blogspot.com/2017/06/
Timestamp: 2018-06-17 21:55:33
Document Index: 107295413

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 53', 'Art. 12', 'Art. 54', 'Art. 56', 'Art. 84', 'Art. 56', 'Art. 123', 'Art. 83']

DeltaPatents : Case Law DeltaPatents EPO Case Law: June 2017
Geplaatst door Jelle Hoekstra op 15:12 No comments :
Labels: animal , Art. 53 EPC , essentially biological process , G 2/12 , G 2/13 , plant
In this appeal in opposition, the Board considered it to be within the board's discretion not to admit auxiliary requests which define subject-matter "diverging" from subject-matter of higher ranking requests, including those requests which, in essence, were filed during first-instance proceedings and re-filed with the respondent's reply, but were not examined by the first-instance department.
Geplaatst door Roel van Woudenberg op 13:47 1 comment :
Labels: admissibility auxiliary request , Art. 12(4) RPBA
In two recent decisions in opposition appeal, the Board addressed how the skilled person interprets the claims. In interpreting the claims for assessing novelty and inventive step, the Board refers to established case law and emphasizes that "the patent must be construed by a mind willing to understand, not a mind desirous of misunderstanding" and that "the skilled person should try with synthetical propensity, to arrive at an interpretation which is technically sensible and takes into account the whole of the disclosure of a patent".
Geplaatst door Roel van Woudenberg op 08:42 No comments :
Labels: Art. 54 EPC , Art. 56 EPC , Art. 84 EPC , claim interpretation , meaningful interpretation , skilled person , technnical sensible interpretation , willingsness to understand
Geplaatst door Jelle Hoekstra op 11:30 No comments :
The application concerned a training device which receives an electronic training script that defines a workout sequence in which a user is instructed to perform a plurality of activities. The user is prompted for a next activity when a defined quantity of a previous activity is detected.
The application was rejected on the basis of document D1 which is an electronic system to monitor and train an individual on proper motion during physical movement. The Board agrees with the applicant that this is not relevant for the application. Unfortunately for the applicant, the Board knows from its own experience of other trainings systems, and send the case back for further investigation.
Geplaatst door Sander van Rijnswou op 08:49 1 comment :
Geplaatst door Nico Cordes op 15:30 No comments :
Labels: Art. 56 EPC , bonus effect , objective technical problem , one way street , T 506/92 , T 794/01 , technical effect
Geplaatst door Romano Beitsma op 15:53 No comments :
Labels: added subject matter , Art. 123(2) EPC
The main claim in this opposition appeal concerns an E. coli host cell sample subjected to non-lysing pressure. According to the opponent the examples in the patent are the only known cell systems that do not lyse under the conditions of the claim, or that give the effect of increased yield. As a result, the claim is neither workable nor inventive over the entire scope claimed.
The Board has problems with the evidentiary value of the documents cited by the opponent. Furthermore, that there exists an embodiment falling under the scope of the claim that does not show the effect is in itself not enough to deny inventive step.
Geplaatst door Sander van Rijnswou op 10:10 No comments :
Labels: anonymous statement , Art. 83 EPC , Evidence , probative value , sufficiency over whole claim scope , undue burden , unsigned statement