tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990057754240336385.post8458722305719647525..comments2024-02-27T09:18:36.160+01:00Comments on DeltaPatents Case Law blog: T 447/13 - Trivially or seriously ill?DeltaPatentshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07830354704918972593noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990057754240336385.post-79091305773027107382018-02-24T13:04:09.747+01:002018-02-24T13:04:09.747+01:00When looking at the file, one notices that there h...When looking at the file, one notices that there have been official changes with respect of the representative in charge. It was first Mr Robinson, then Mrs Kohler, and again Mr Robinson. Every change is documented. So it is clear that Mr Robinson was the representative in charge.<br /><br />When Mr Robinson declares the evening before the scheduled OP, that the representative in charge has been take (sic) ill, one wonders who it could be. As it was officially himself phoning to the EPO and signing the request for postponement, he was certainly not ill. he could at least have given the name of the representative allegedly in charge. Officially it was himself.<br /><br />When on top of it Mr Robinson has repeatedly said the the OP are not necessary, I am not surprised with the turn of events.<br /><br />Rather than to say that it has not been shown how ill the representative is, the ED should have requested to know who was actually the representative in charge.<br /><br />I do not want to blame anybody, but the behaviour of the representative is at least fishy, not to say more. <br /><br />It is a pity that the BA fell for this fishy story. The main reason for claiming a substantial procedural violation was a new ground raised in the decision, added matter. It is only anecdotally that the representative claimed a SPV for not postponing the OP. <br /><br />The ED made a mistake, but the behaviour of the representative is far from correct. <br />A crtical viewnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990057754240336385.post-83924675923149940232018-02-22T09:48:49.285+01:002018-02-22T09:48:49.285+01:00I guess soon it will be mandatory for participants...I guess soon it will be mandatory for participants at oral hearings to wear masks in order to prevent "non-serious" illnesses from spreading :-)Cinmodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13138659642757498668noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990057754240336385.post-75305465003119967552018-02-15T15:39:49.846+01:002018-02-15T15:39:49.846+01:00Just outcome. However, the ED made some pretty obv...Just outcome. However, the ED made some pretty obvious mistakes. I wish the Board had stated that the requirement for substantiation may not be too high. The next time the ED will may simply write "no doctors certificate", "an influenza is not serious", "while there is a certificate of a doctor, it was not a specialist doctor but only a GP", "too little, too late, we hate you" or something along these lines. I mean people can get sick, where is the professionalism on the side of the EPO?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com