Friday, 20 January 2017
Tuesday, 17 January 2017
Friday, 13 January 2017
In the opposition appeal to which this decision pertains (which has been suggested by a reader), the proprietor appealed against the decision of the Opposition Division to revoke the patent on the basis of all requests extending beyond the content of the application as filed (Article 123(2) EPC).
Of interest is the first auxiliary request of the appellant, by which the claim of the main request is further limited by: "further wherein the third ply of interlayer material comprises a plasticizer".
The appellant argues that the subject-matter of claim 1 of the first auxiliary request amounted to a disclaimer allowable in view of A8, which was prior art according to Article 54(3) EPC.
Monday, 9 January 2017
In this opposition appeal, according to appellant 2 (proprietor), there were quite a lot of things erroneous with the notice of appeal of appellant 1 (opponent), such as: no name of the appellant mentioned, no correct indication of the decision impugned, and it should lack a clear request defining the subject of the appeal. The Board examined this and tried, for example, to understand who the appellant 1 was although this was not explicitly mentioned in the received notice of opposition. The Board also discussed Rule 99(1)(c) EPC comprehensively and concluded, also based on other case law, that a lacking definition of the subject of appeal must be understood as "request that the decision be set aside in its entirety".
Tuesday, 3 January 2017
Tuesday, 27 December 2016
The opponent filed six related oppositions against patents arising from a parent application and five divisional applications from it. The Notices of Opposition each contained a debit order, ordering that the opposition fees to be debited from the opponent’s deposit account. Unfortunately, the opponent's deposit account had only contained sufficient funds for one opposition fee. After the opposition period ended, the deposit account was replenished and the opposition fee was payed with 30% penalty, under rules of the ADA. The proprietor challenges the legality of this. Note the Arrangements for deposit accounts (ADA) has since changed! (Old rules, New rules, Faq )
Friday, 23 December 2016
Clear from the words alone?
This examination appeal deals with the clarity of the claims, and whether a clarity deficiency in the claim wording can be rectified by the fact that the description could possibly help the reader to understand the technical subject-matter which the claim was intended to define. In line with established case law, the Board decides that the claims must be clear by themselves.