In the present case, the examining division regarded several paragraphs of the description to be at odds with independent claim 1, as amended. The examining division equated the term “embodiment” with subject-matter that has to fall “within the scope of the invention as defined by the claims”, and concluded that the description so adapted was
10 daysA news message on the epi website indicates that the Administrative Council of the EPOrg decided to amen to Rule 126(2) EPC relating to the date on which a document sent by the EPO is deemed to be delivered. Currently, a documnt is deemed delivered 10 days after the date on the document. This
%20for%20T%2017_22%20(case%20law%20blog%2021-09-2022)%20-%2018750027%20-%20snapshot.png)
In the present case, the examining division issued a decision to refuse the application based on the ground under Article 123(2) EPC and on lack of novelty, lack of inventive step and lack of clarity. However, the examining division had issued only two communications before deciding to refuse the application: the first was a communication
In the present case, the application was refused due to lack of novelty. The applicant appealed with a sole request in which the applicant amended the independent claims. The amendments included the addition of a feature to the independent claims which, according to a positive statement in the annex to the summons for oral proceedings
In the present case (T 1517/17, consolidated with T 2719/19), the patent proprietor filed an appeal to the interlocutory decision of the opposition division revoking its patent. The application on which the patent was granted had originally been filed as an international application under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (the PCT application). It claims priority on
In the present case, the examining division found the set of amended claims of the main request to be allowable, but nevertheless it held that the amendments to the description adapted to those claims (submitted with the same letter) did not comply with the requirements of Article 84 EPC, in particular because they related to
In the oral proceedings before the Legal Board of Appeal in the two DABUS cases earlier today, the Board decided that the appeal is dismissed and that the request for a referral to the Enlarged Board is refused.The Board concludes that DABUS, an AI machine, cannot be considered an inventor in the meaning of the
Today, an EPO news message was published in the EPO website indicating that the President of the EPO and the President of the Boards of Appeal have proposed to the Administrative Council to relocate the Boards back from Haar to the city center, more specifically to Pschorr-Höfe 7 in Munich, owned by the EPO (Bayerstrasse
On 16 July 2021, a Press Communiqué was issued by Spokespersons of the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office on the decision of the Enlarged Board in G 1/21. The full reasoning of the decision was not yet issued at that time, but only the Order and some comments. E.g, in the