Key points
- The proprietor submits amended claims before the Rule 116 date, in reply to a new objection under Art. 123(2) raised by the OD in the preliminary opinion, and submits a correction of clerical errors in those claims after the Rule 116 date. How should the OD consider admissibility?
- The Board, in translation: The requests pending at the beginning of the oral proceedings thus constitute a timely response to the objection of inadmissible amendment first raised in the summons, and also filed within the time limit, so that, contrary to the Opposition Division's view [...] these requests were not late. Therefore, the Opposition Division had no discretion in admitting the requests, but should have admitted them into the proceedings and examined them in detail.
- The Board, in the original German: " Die von der Einspruchsabteilung vorgenommene prima facie-Prüfung war deshalb nicht ausreichend und benachteiligte die Beschwerdeführerin in unzulässiger Weise, da der von ihr gemachte bona fide Versuch, den Mangel der vermeintlich unzulässigen Änderung zu beheben, nicht vollumfänglich geprüft wurde.""
- Hence, if the amended claims are a timely and bona fide response to an objection, they must be examined on the merits (and hence admitted).
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.