tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990057754240336385.post9044378993378415598..comments2024-02-27T09:18:36.160+01:00Comments on DeltaPatents Case Law blog: T 2171/14 - Special reasons for not remitting, despite fundamental deficiencies in first instanceDeltaPatentshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07830354704918972593noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990057754240336385.post-81117025597594936532016-07-19T17:44:47.984+02:002016-07-19T17:44:47.984+02:00This decision is interesting in that it made clear...This decision is interesting in that it made clear that, even if the board considers that the decision of the opposition division is not properly reasoned, which amounts to a substantial procedural violation, the Board might not remit. <br /><br />The opposition division neither discussed an objection under Art 100,c), nor under Art 100,b), but revoked the patent for lack of novelty.<br /><br />Considering an objection under Art 100,c) as a “formal” objection was a bit daring for the opposition division. At least it is clear that an objection under Art 123(2) overrides any conclusion as to novelty or inventive step.<br /><br />As the ground under Art 100,c) had been raised in opposition, the board decided to revoke the patent for this ground at least for claim 1 as granted and the claim found allowable by the opposition division, i.e. the main request in appeal. <br /><br />The board never said anything in respect of Art 100,b).<br />AR VII new to X new were all late filed, whereby AR IX new and X new were filed during oral proceedings.<br /><br />What is surprising in this decision, is that AR VII new has been admitted in the procedure, but immediately declared not allowable as manifestly infringing Art 123(3).<br /><br />AR VIII new was on the other hand not admitted, exactly for the reasons which were against AR VII new.<br /><br />AR IX new was admitted into the procedure, but immediately declared not allowable under Art 123(2). <br /><br />AR X new was as well admitted, but immediately declared not allowable under Art 84.<br /><br />I always thought that if a late filed request shows signs of problems with Art 84, 123(2) or 123(3), it would not be admitted in the procedure. <br /><br />It is difficult to understand the logic behind this way of doing, some request admitted, but immediately killed, and other not admitted for the same reasons. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com