tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990057754240336385.post8234669892783606625..comments2024-02-27T09:18:36.160+01:00Comments on DeltaPatents Case Law blog: T 2249/13 - Refund after declaration of no search?DeltaPatentshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07830354704918972593noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990057754240336385.post-90288054997013791122015-02-25T22:10:03.341+01:002015-02-25T22:10:03.341+01:00T2249/13 sidesteps the no search vs OJ notice issu...T2249/13 sidesteps the no search vs OJ notice issue (sent out where there are some basic tech features but so basic that no documentary evidence is needed) - because the board has no power over the (non-loss-of-rights) search stage; the board found that the division was justified in refusing without a document anyway - whereas in T1242/04 they (at least initially) felt that some kind of document, at least from the examining division, would be nice. But really... T1242/04 - finish the story! Returned to division. Document provided showing how exceptionally well known such systems were was accepted by board in the re-refusal and re-appeal T946/08. Case closed two years ago already... Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990057754240336385.post-83301492582162400182015-02-16T10:03:26.609+01:002015-02-16T10:03:26.609+01:00I also wondered about the distinction between a &#...I also wondered about the distinction between a 'real' declaration of no search and the 'fake' one issued here. However, it appears that the Board takes the search report as it really is, not as it pretends to be. What is relevant is that no search was performed more than what it calls itself.<br /><br />Maybe a bit like it is with decisions: Whether a document constitutes a decision or a communication depends on the substance of its contents, not upon its form. (J8/81)<br /><br />T 1242/04 is certainly interesting in this regard. The search division does get a telling off in that case. But in the end the appeal is remitted to the examining division. They will have to do an additional search.<br />Sander van Rijnswouhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08074604101159694993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990057754240336385.post-14968625925442891262015-02-14T00:06:29.514+01:002015-02-14T00:06:29.514+01:00I wonder if the board was aware that the search re...I wonder if the board was aware that the search report in this case pretends to be a "real" search report and not a "declaration of no search" under Rule 63.<br /><br />According to T 1242/04, a declaration of no search may only be issued if "the entire set of claims including all independent and dependent claims, clearly has no technical character". This was not such a case. The fake search report that was issued in fact states that the claimed subject-matter has technical character.<br /><br />The practice of issuing pretended search reports as a creative way of circumventing the "rule" of T 1242/04 seems very questionable to me. If the search division really thinks that a no search is in order, it should do so under Rule 63 and not act ultra vires as it did here.<br /><br />I understand that a board in principle has no power to review the work of the search division, but they clearly did so anyway in T 1242/04. I think they could have said something here as well.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com