- " The board concludes that the only distinguishing feature in question must be considered to lack inventive step over the prior art D2 and D7, Article 56 EPC."
- I am nitpicking, but inventive step is about the subject-matter as claimed, i.e. the combination of features. Not about individual features of a claim. The Board could have said e.g. that the distinguishing feature does not provide for an inventive step over D2 and D7.
EPO T 1307/15 - link
18. The board concludes that the only distinguishing feature in question must be considered to lack inventive step over the prior art D2 and D7, Article 56 EPC.
Not nit-picking. Very important, that DG3 preserves the integrity of its Art 56 EPC jurisprudence. The sloppy language that you put your finger on brings DG3 into disrepute.
ReplyDeleteDon't just blame the Rapporteur (what wrote it!). Blame the Chair of the TBA, who didn't review and edit the poor text.
Falling standards, or what. Loss of too many experienced wise heads from the ranks within DG3? An exodus in recent years? Or what?
Hi Max, thanks for your comment. But I won't allow debate about EPO governance on this blog. By the way the Boards are no longer DG3.
Delete