tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990057754240336385.post5137632775149241318..comments2024-02-27T09:18:36.160+01:00Comments on DeltaPatents Case Law blog: T 1921/10 - No prominent role...DeltaPatentshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07830354704918972593noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990057754240336385.post-83387971224720739982016-03-17T10:50:09.489+01:002016-03-17T10:50:09.489+01:00The comment about according to which the claims 5 ...The comment about according to which the claims 5 and 6, did not play "any prominent role" during the examination and appeal proceedings should not be given too much weight.<br />What happened here is the same old story: do not consider a communication of the Board as an invitation to file further requests, e.g. T 145/11 or T 1932/12. <br />There is thus no surprise that the BA dismissed the new requests as an amendment to a party's case, the more so, since it considered the requests prima facie not overcoming the objections raised.<br />The comment above could however lead to the conclusion that even if the auxiliary requests would have been filed when entering appeal, they might have been not admitted under Art 12(4)RPBA.<br />Lesson to be learned: as applicant proprietor, file auxiliary requests as early as possible, i.e. already in first instance.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com