Background Following T 1989/18, many applicants of European patents were of the view that Examining (and Opposition) Divisions could no longer require them to amend the descriptions of their applications prior to grant, so that they conform with the claims. By...
Overview T 0013/20 concerns the refusal of a patent application with a priority date in July 2004, where the relevant citation is D2: W.E. Ryan: “An Introduction to LDPC Codes”, XP002336953, pp. 1-23. A date of “August 19, 2003” – i.e. before the priority...
The EPO has introduced new versions of the Guidelines for Examination in the European Patent Office and the Guidelines for Search and Examination at the EPO as PCT Authority. Both sets of Guidelines took effect on 1 March 2022, as part of the EPO’s regular two-yearly...
Background In 2018, two patent applications (EP3564144 and EP3563896) were filed by the same applicant, Dr Thaler, and initially failed to provide information about the inventor. After notification from the EPO regarding the missing inventor details, the applicant...
Background In our previous article, we discussed the expected referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal in case T 116/18, wherein the Board of Appeal decided greater clarity was required concerning the use of post-published data when considering inventive step. The...
Background In this case, the applicant appealed an Examining Division decision to refuse an application under Art. 84 EPC as the applicant did not, in the Examining Division’s view, sufficiently amend the description to conform with the allowed claims. On appeal, the...
Recent Comments