Epo Round-Up: Hold Upwards 1

Last week, the IPKat sought the thoughts of his readers regarding reporting EPO decisions. Well, 1 of his readers, Darren Smyth, gave the IPKat non exclusively his thoughts, but too a breakdown of of import decisions during the calendar month of May. There's too so many that the IPKat has decided to study them inward iii installments. Here's the first, consisting of reports from the EPO Board of Appeal reported inward the Official Journal during May - await out for the side past times side 1 during the coming week:

T1110/03

This conclusion is primarily most whether postal service published documents tin survive taken equally bear witness of the country of the fine art earlier the priority engagement of the patent. However, I uncovering it to a greater extent than interesting because it confirms the stance of T1122/01 that presentations of the Power Point type are belike non appropriate during oral proceedings, because they alter the grapheme of oral proceedings from an oral grapheme to a written character. However, the conclusion does non become too so far equally to enjoin that such presentations tin never survive allowed. However, it volition belike survive necessary at the to the lowest degree that the content of the proposed presentation is submitted to the EPO too to the parties at to the lowest degree past times the deadline for in conclusion written submissions.

T1181/04

This interesting conclusion appears to consider that the acquaint EPO grant-stage practise nether Rule 51(4) EPC is unlawful. The amendment to Rule 51 inward 2002 was stated inward the notice published at OJ EPO 2002,112 to include the alter that limited disapproval of the proposed text for grant is “no longer foreseen”. However, the Board of Appeal states that “this practise is non justified past times the EPC for the reasons ready out below”. It is farther stated “present Rule 51 EPC does non furnish whatever means to limited disapproval. But this does non hateful that the applicant tin survive deprived of the possibility of expressing its disapproval.” It would look that the Board of Appeal is suggesting either that the Rule itself survive changed, or that the wording of the Communication nether Rule 51(4) survive changed.

T1255/04

This conclusion states that, inward a representative where at that topographic point is a asking considered allowable on which a Rule 51(4) EPC Communication is to survive sent, but at that topographic point are too non allowed higher-ranking requests, the Communication nether Rule 51(4) EPC is deficient if it is non accompanied past times reasons why the higher-ranking requests are non allowed. This Communication should too expressly advert the selection of maintaining the disallowed requests, hence reminding the applicant too the Examining Division of the possibility for the applicant of asking for a written appealable conclusion on these higher-ranking requests.

The EPO - domicile of happy patent examiners

says, cheers Darren.