Key points
- The Board, in translation: "The appellant [opponent] argued that claim 1 would not meet the requirements of Article 123(2) EPC, contrary to the conclusions in point II.15.2 of the reasons for the contested decision. It submitted, among other things, that the addition of the feature that the reservoir (2) is axially movable in the body (1) would lead to an inadmissible intermediate generalisation. This characteristic, which could only be deduced from the first embodiment of figures 1 to 8, would be inseparable from the other characteristics specifically mentioned in this context. The Chamber agrees with this argument."
- Follows some concise reasoning.
- The decision is rather run-of-the-mill, except that the application was filed as a PCT application on 25.11.2004. The opposition appeal decision was dated 02.05.2025.
- EP entry in 2005, first communication of the Examining Division in 2009, refusal in 2011, appeal decision in 2013, second decision to refuse in 2014 (no interactions in between), second appeal decision in 2019. Grant in 2020.
- I suppose it is just the trailing edge of the curve. Still, seeing an opposition appeal lasting into patent year 21, without the application being a divisonal application, is rare.
- The Board had asked the opponent whether it was still interested in the appeal after the lapse in all states under rule 84(1) EPC. The opponent/appellant confirmed.
EPO
The link to the decision can be found after the jump.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Do not use hyperlinks in comment text or user name. Comments are welcome, even though they are strictly moderated (no politics). Moderation can take some time.