tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990057754240336385.post3524793870395118998..comments2024-02-27T09:18:36.160+01:00Comments on DeltaPatents Case Law blog: T 2371/10 - How not to write a claimDeltaPatentshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07830354704918972593noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990057754240336385.post-55264344291340605272015-09-12T18:38:20.081+02:002015-09-12T18:38:20.081+02:00When you at the subject-matter of the file, there ...When you at the subject-matter of the file, there is no surprise that it was not one those which would be given a high priority. <br />On the other hand, the time in dealing with the application was certainly too long. <br />As far as the Boards are concerned, there should be no surprise as the number of vacant posts in the Boards is constantly rising. This is the President's revenge and aim of increasing the production/productivity of the Boards of Appeal. Old Mannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990057754240336385.post-11184658956908886362015-09-12T18:34:22.099+02:002015-09-12T18:34:22.099+02:00It is clear that the claims filed had problems, bu...It is clear that the claims filed had problems, but why then the comment at the beginning of the blog? Sorry for the pun, but it difficult to see anything else than a clear and harsh criticism of the representative in charge of the file.Old Mannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990057754240336385.post-4776512712431809342015-09-10T18:55:29.053+02:002015-09-10T18:55:29.053+02:00PCT filed in 1998 (!) Entry EP phase in 2000. Supp...PCT filed in 1998 (!) Entry EP phase in 2000. Suppl. ESR in 2007 (!). Apparently the translation of the IPER had not been filed and EPO took no action at all. Refusal in 2010. Board 3.4.01 seems to have 5 year pend. Does not seem a case to be proud of for the EPO either. DAPDOSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990057754240336385.post-40479751379537737312015-09-10T12:39:34.016+02:002015-09-10T12:39:34.016+02:00There is no intention to be harsh with a colleague...There is no intention to be harsh with a colleague. It may very well be that the representative had nothing to do with the decisions regarding the translations, the new claims and not showing up at the oral proceedings. I simply agree with the Board that the claims as they were put forward during appeal had some 'difficulties' under Art 84 EPC. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07270922965332679374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990057754240336385.post-37656261053359219012015-09-09T12:21:11.844+02:002015-09-09T12:21:11.844+02:00I think the representative involved in the case as...I think the representative involved in the case as done what he could in view of what he got from the applicant. That he did not turn up at oral proceedings might simply be due to the fact that he was not getting paid.<br />On the other hand, it would have been strange for EPO to grant a patent for a machine which is capable of delivering temperatures of 70°C in order to kill the tumour, but that the tumour could be left in the body in necrosed state, see § 017 of the application in English. All of this without injuring normal tissue! It is even said that the tumour left in the body would strengthen the immunity and that the tumour will eventually be absorbed.<br />The representative has referred during examination that -from the applicant's point of view- some conclusions could be drawn. <br />I would not have been so harsh with a colleague. Old Mannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990057754240336385.post-52767685961387750102015-09-09T12:09:19.890+02:002015-09-09T12:09:19.890+02:00Something may have been lost in translation; the o...Something may have been lost in translation; the original PCT application was filed in Chinese. <br /><br />Outside of Europe, this application did better. It was granted in Canada en the US (US 6,685,639). The claims of the US grant are quite different and make a much better impression.Sander van Rijnswouhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08074604101159694993noreply@blogger.com