T 2303/16 - refused for lack of two-part form, conciseness and reference numerals
 |
| Car towed because of a parking violation |
The application was refused after a single office action on the grounds of lack of conciseness, two-part form and reference numerals. In appeal these are addressed but no interlocutory revision was given.
After entering the regional phase at the EPO in 2006, the applicant received its first office action in 2014. The office action raised clarity issues and a few smaller problems, in particular lack of reference numerals. The international search report had complained earlier about lack of two-part form, and lack of conciseness due to too many independent claims (in addition of substantive problems). In it's reply, the applicant amended for the clarity issue, and addressed the patentability of the claims. The second communication in ten years was a refusal.
The board did not see a problem with a refusal based on formal issues that were only identified in the ISR, but did rule that interlocutory revision should have been granted.
SHARE:
