tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2968669527167677428.post5228996133588139196..comments2024-03-14T11:22:27.832+01:00Comments on Just Patent Law Blog: T 2131/12 - Essential features according to descriptionPeterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01894818186743773612noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2968669527167677428.post-78622250465860809042018-07-16T21:46:37.632+02:002018-07-16T21:46:37.632+02:00Except that the Board in T1180/14 strongly disagre...Except that the Board in T1180/14 strongly disagrees with T2131/12. See my post of 10 July. Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01894818186743773612noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2968669527167677428.post-14291703788308318962018-07-10T08:34:07.603+02:002018-07-10T08:34:07.603+02:00The decision is not surprising, and corresponds to...The decision is not surprising, and corresponds to established case law. <br /><br />The decision is also interesting as it reminds the difference between an error in appreciation and an error in procedure. Only the latter can bring about a reimbursement of the appeal fee if a substantial procedural violation has occurred.<br /><br />A further important aspect: as long as a new objection is discussed thoroughly during OP, it does not imply a substantial procedural violation. After the opinion annexed to the summons is purely provisional and the ED or OD can deviate from it. For example T 402/06, T 606/06 and T 1141/03.Attentive observerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10496045206312988199noreply@blogger.com