Source: http://dp-patentlaw.blogspot.com/2017_03_01_archive.html
Timestamp: 2018-02-19 17:51:38
Document Index: 523672061

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 87', 'Art. 52', 'Art. 56', 'Art. 87', 'Art. 88', 'Art. 123', 'Art. 87', 'Art. 84', 'Art. 12', 'Art.123', 'Art. 12']

DeltaPatents : Case Law DeltaPatents EPO Case Law: March 2017
T 545/08 - A lecture: internet disclosures and balance of probabilties
Subject of this appeal is the date of public availability of an internet disclosure and whether the Examining Division should have allowed evidence with respect to the publication date of this disclosure into the proceedings. Although the Board describes somewhere in its decision that the Boards of Appeal of have a huge backlog, this Board spent quite some time on writing a nice "lesson" on determining the date of availability to the public of internet disclosures and how the balance of probabilities must be applied in those cases. Of course, the Board has to provide a well-reasoned decision - somehow I have the feeling that the lesson is also written for the Examining Division because it seems that the Board was not completely happy with their work.
Geplaatst door Jeroen Willekens op 10:51 No comments :
Labels: balance of probabilities , date of public availability , G 1/12 , G 3/97 , internet disclosure , publication date , T 1134/06 , T 19/05 , T 2227/11 , T 2339/09 , T 286/10 , T 373/03 , T 381/87 , T 526/12 , T 750/94 , T 990/09
Geplaatst door Roel van Woudenberg op 17:11 1 comment :
T 577/11 - Entitlement to priority; transfer of priority right
In this case, the Board goes very deep into the issue of the entitlement to claim priority by a successor in title. In particular: when does the actual transfer need to take place? Could the EPO recognize a retroactive transfer if a national law would allow that?
The answer: strict - the actual transfer must have been completed before the priority is claimed.
Geplaatst door Jelle Hoekstra op 11:03 3 comments :
Labels: Art. 87(1) EPC , Entitlement to priority , priority , T 577/11 , Transfer of priority right
Geplaatst door Sander van Rijnswou op 12:33 No comments :
T 0625/11 - How technical is determining a threshold value?
In this appeal from the Examining Division the main question is whether the claimed method of determining a threshold value of an operational parameter of a nuclear reactor, based upon a simulation of the functioning of the reactor, is technical. The Examining Division recognised that the use of a computer made the claimed invention technical in the sense of Art. 52 EPC, but denied inventive step. Discussing the case law, including T 0641/00 (Comvik) and T 1227/05 (Infineon), the Board distinguishes two different approaches. The first approach requires including the functioning of the nuclear reactor to state the technical effect in the claim. The second approach, which is in line with T 1227/05, does not require stating the technical problem in the claim. The Board chooses the second approach and concludes that determining the value of a parameter gives the claim a technical character going beyond the simple interaction between the numerical interaction algorithm and the computer.
Geplaatst door Romano Beitsma op 15:00 No comments :
Labels: Art. 56 EPC , G 1/03 , inventive step , objective technical problem , T 1227/05 , T 641/00 , technical contribution
T 1434/13 - When priority becomes important: D1 is published in the priority year
Fig. 2 of D1 (WO2006/095202)
Only in few number cases the right to priority is extensively examined - in general only if there is prior art that has been published in the priority year. In this opposition appeal there was a document on file (D1) that was published in the priority year of the disputed patent. An interesting thing to mention is that document D1 is a PCT application of the same applicant as the owner of the disputed patent. In the opposition proceedings, the Division decided that the patent did not enjoy the right of priority from the two priority documents and, thus, that the claim as granted lacked novelty. In this appeal, the Board repeated the work of the Opposition Division. The Board wrote down an interesting reasoning because different aspects played a role: features were disclosed in the figures, features were not disclosed as a whole in a single embodiment and it seems that essential elements of the priority documents are not the claims (in other words: the priority documents disclose different inventions).
Geplaatst door Jeroen Willekens op 14:54 No comments :
Labels: Art. 87(1) EPC , Art. 88 EPC , features from drawings , G 2/98 , multiple priority claims , priority , relation Art. 123(2) EPC and Art. 87(1) , right to priority , T 169/83
T 1768/11 - Almost destroyed the chance to present new requests with the statement of grounds
In the Annex to the summons for oral proceedings, the Examining Division raised objections under Art. 84, 123(2) and 56 EPC. The applicant responded by requesting "that instead of Oral Proceedings an appealable decision be issued based on the state of the file". The applicant neither commented on the substance of the communication nor submitted amended claims. After the Examining Division had issued the requested decision, the applicant filed the present appeal and, with its statement of grounds of appeal, replaced its sole substantive request with a new main request and first and second auxiliary request. The applicant hereby took a major risk: when wanting to file new requests, the proper reaction would have been to comment on the objections and file amended claims in first instance proceedings, as Art. 12(4) Rule of Procedure of the Board of Appeal allows the Board to held requests inadmissible that could -and should- have been presented in first instance. Luckily, the Board decided to exercise this discretionary power in the appellant's favour and to admit them into the proceedings (... but they failed on Art.123(2) and 84).
Geplaatst door Roel van Woudenberg op 08:05 2 comments :
Labels: Art. 12(4) RPBA , decision on the state of the file , responding in substance to objections raised