tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990057754240336385.post4365953315000127528..comments2024-02-27T09:18:36.160+01:00Comments on DeltaPatents Case Law blog: T 1410/14 - Recognizable to skilled person within short periodDeltaPatentshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07830354704918972593noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990057754240336385.post-34450736390923403962015-12-31T12:10:19.308+01:002015-12-31T12:10:19.308+01:00What was meant by adequate circumstances is easy t...What was meant by adequate circumstances is easy to understand. In the present case, it was necessary to notice the relative movement of the two tram bodies relative to one another, and then to relate this with the special link between said two bodies. It is probably only when knowing what to look for that it is possible to say there has been a public prior use. But then it happened already, but under different circumstances. <br />The circumstances play an important role when assessing a public prior use. <br />A machine can be publicly used, but when the patent relates to a control circuit buried somewhere within the frame of the machine, has the control circuit been disclosed? A priori not. May be if a service door has been opened and/or the circuit displayed. If the machine is sold with a maintenance manual disclosing the circuit, then there is not doubt about the possibility to gain knowledge. <br />Even in the case of a car, only what can be seen from the outside is publicly known. Would you claim that the camshaft has been disclosed when the car is parked on a public space? Raoulnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990057754240336385.post-15563288488460180502015-12-28T17:00:47.643+01:002015-12-28T17:00:47.643+01:00Dear Raoul, as regards the possibility of using vi...Dear Raoul, as regards the possibility of using video or photos: if what counts is solely the possibility that the public gains knowledge of the prior used device, I do not see why you say that the circumstances have to be adequate. By using the device in public, there is always the possibility that someone takes photos/pictures of the device. In order to avoid such risks, it is usual to cover the features of the device (see what the car industry does). Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990057754240336385.post-46987815510104018022015-12-23T10:09:38.446+01:002015-12-23T10:09:38.446+01:00If the opposition had not been introduced by Bomba...If the opposition had not been introduced by Bombardier, one of the competitors of the proprietor Siemens, it could all lend to a smile.<br />The test runs of the Bombardier tram were probably under a confidentiality clause, at least implicit, for the agents of the tram company. It would have been much easier to cite one of these agents as a witness, rather than trying such a demonstration. The only witness called has only participated in the development and mounting of the console, but was not participating in the test runs. It could therefore add nothing to his initial testimony.<br />In any case the representative of the opponent was quite creative.<br />It must be conceded to the Board that it considered very thoroughly this issue. A patent cannot be revoked on flimsy grounds.<br />It is the opponent who brought in the possibility to use video or photos to demonstrate the movement of the console. In order to use such video/photo means, it would have been necessary to know what to look for, especially a relative movement of the tram parts. And that is anything but sure. The Board has clearly dismissed this possibility. It does not mean that it will not be possible to bring in such means, but the circumstances have to be adequate. When looking at the three conditions for a public prior use, when, what and how, the Board clearly answered no to the what and considered the how being contrary to what one would expect. <br />13 times one second are not 13 seconds!Raoulnoreply@blogger.com