tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990057754240336385.post7037447459646976059..comments2024-02-27T09:18:36.160+01:00Comments on DeltaPatents Case Law blog: T 0918/17 - Copy-paste approach doesn't cut itDeltaPatentshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07830354704918972593noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990057754240336385.post-90540223689164894932018-11-08T09:58:06.995+01:002018-11-08T09:58:06.995+01:00Tough descion for the appellant, but understandabl...Tough descion for the appellant, but understandable from a legal point of view.<br /><br />According to Rule 99(2) EPC, the appellant shall indicate the reasons for setting aside the decision impugned, or the extent to which it is to be amended, and the facts and evidence on which the appeal is based. <br /><br />Regarding the grounds for refusal concerning a lack of inventive step, the appellant has obviously neither provided reasons (e.g. arguments) nor facts and evidence.<br /><br />Thus, I completely share the conclusion of the BoA that the appeal is to be rejected as inadmissible (see Rule 101(1) EPC in connection with A. 108, 3rd sent. EPC).<br /><br />However, when reading Rule 99(2) EPC, I stumbled on the term "or the extent to which it has to be amended". Does said term in Rule 99(2) include the possibility to indicate (only) reasons in the grounds of appeal for (simply) amending the impugned decision, i.e. not necessarily reasons for (completely) setting it aside? <br /><br />Naturally, this is not very desirable for an appellant because a simple amendment of the decision would - in my view - mean that the appeal is dismissed, i.e. unsuccessful.<br /><br />However, the question that I ask myself is the following: Could the present appeal still have been rejected as inadmissible if the appellant had actually provided facts and evidence regarding inventive step? <br /><br />In this case, one requirement of Rule 99(2) EPC is fulfilled. Regarding the other requirement, it is true that the appellant has not provided reasons for setting aside the (complete) decision. On the other hand, in the present case, the view could be taken that the appellant has actually provided reasons for amending the impugned decision, i.e. amending the decision to the extent that the refusal is only based on a lack of inventive step, but no longer on a lack of inadmissibility of the amendments.<br /><br />Maybe I am on the wrong track. What is your opinion?<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com