tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990057754240336385.post5703706858651678324..comments2024-02-27T09:18:36.160+01:00Comments on DeltaPatents Case Law blog: T 1164/11 - Use the forceDeltaPatentshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07830354704918972593noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990057754240336385.post-56562339950455808002015-05-20T10:16:00.564+02:002015-05-20T10:16:00.564+02:00I think you are right IP15. In this respect the op...I think you are right IP15. In this respect the opening statement of the board, "The Board agrees that the skilled person would be able to assemble the claimed apparatus.", is not entirely accurate. It is exactly the problem, that the skilled person could not make the claimed energy emitter. Sander van Rijnswouhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08074604101159694993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990057754240336385.post-73257896009908077482015-05-20T09:08:07.558+02:002015-05-20T09:08:07.558+02:00Interesting to see that this claim is rejected und...Interesting to see that this claim is rejected under A83 because it specifies the effect in the claim. According to the Guidelines G-III-1 "Objection could arise under Art. 57 only insofar as the claim specifies the intended function or purpose of the invention, but if, say, a perpetual motion machine is claimed merely as an article having a particular specified construction then objection should be made under Art. 83 (see F‑III, 3)." In my opinion, the present Board has it right: A83 only if the effect is specified and not merely the construction.IP15noreply@blogger.com