The Board of Appeal ruled that color figures contained in the application when filed could be used as a basis for amendments. The board had to deal with the problem that no original copy of the color figures was available to the board. Therefore, the board considered it appropriate to compare sets of copies of the figures to discover whether it could be consistently determined that one of these sets contained the most information and to assume that the originally filed figures contained at least the information in that one set.
Click here for the full text of this case.
A summary of this case will be posted on http://www.Kluweriplaw.com
[...]In an appeal against a decision by the Opposition Division to maintain the patent in amended form, the Board ordered the representative of the opponent to file an authorization. The representative did not do so in due time, but indicated that the opponent would take no further action. The Board held that the legal fiction of Rule 152(6) EPC meant that the opposition was deemed not to have been filed due to the representative’s failure to file the authorization, and ordered a refund of the opposition fee.
Click here for the full text of this case.
A summary of this case will be posted on http://www.Kluweriplaw.com
[...]The Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) revoked a decision by the Technical Board of Appeal because it failed to decide on a request to admit an expert report (rule 104b EPC2000). The petition for review was admissible in spite of the fact that the appellant failed to raise an objection during oral proceedings before the Board, because the appellant had an understandable mistaken belief that the report had been admitted.
Click here for the full text of this case.
A summary of this case will be posted on http://www.KluwerIPCases.com
[...]The Technical Board of Appeal ruled that a claim of an opposed patent was anticipated by the publication of a divisional of that same patent. Because the claim contained an intermediate generalization with respect to the priority document, the claim was not entitled to priority. The divisional was however entitled to claim priority for the description of an embodiment that fell under the claim, and was therefore damaging for the novelty of the patent.
Click here for the full text of this case.
A summary of this case will be posted on http://www.KluwerIPCases.com
[...]An invention entailing a talking doll with the ability to send e-mails was held to be unpatentable. The Board of Appeal rejected applicant’s argument that the invention was in the technical field of stuffed animal toys or dolls. There was no contribution in that field because the claim features did not change the toy’s design at all. The alleged solution was held not to be inventive because the technical aspects of the claimed solution were commonly known from prior art.
Click here for the full text of this case.
A summary of this case will be posted on http://www.KluwerIPCases.com
[...]The Board, exercising its power under Article 12(4) RPBA, decided not to admit the patent proprietor’s (appellant) main request in appeal, because he did not at all respond in substance to the opposition in first instance, but had merely stated to be interested in maintaining the patent as granted and that it would not reply to the notice of opposition (e.g. by filing arguments or amended claims). The Board ruled that if a patent proprietor chooses to not at all substantively respond to the opposition, he will need to face the prospect of being held accountable for such conduct.
Click here for the full text of this case.
A summary of this case will be posted on http://www.KluwerIPCases.com [...]
