Just Patent Law Blog

Key points

Rule 43(1) provides that "where appropriate" claims shall contain a preamble and a "characterised in that"  part (two-part form)."The examining division found that D1 represented the closest prior art to the claimed invention and that the subject-matter of claim 1 was both novel and involved an inventive step over the cited art (see page 5 of the dec...

Key points

The applicant essentially wishes to designate an AI tool as the inventor in this examination appeal.The  Board: "the EPC requires that a legally capable person is named as the inventor"Just as a note, the Board does not say "natural person" or "human" but refers to "legally capable persons" (as in J 8/20). Let's suppose that this choice of words is i...

Key points

Claim 1 of the former main request reads: "(a) "Headrest (10), in particular headrest for vehicle seats, (b) comprising a bone conduction two-way sound transmission system (1), which in turn comprises at least one bone conduction loudspeaker (5) and at least one bone conduction microphone (7), ...""With its written reply to the board's [preliminary opinio...

Key points

A case with fourteen opponents and an opponent, about a (blockbuster) medicine (DMF for MS).Opponent 2 filed a Notice of appeal three days after the oral proceedings before the OD. O2 wrote that: "The subject-matter of the claims has changed significantly since the International Patent Classification was provided. The patent now claims a specific dose'"&n...

Key points

" in the Board's view, the "simple mixture" mentioned on page 14 of D1 does not represent a realistic starting point. The starting point for assessing inventive step starting from D1 is therefore the multilayered compositions of examples C1 or C2. The reasons are as follow." Both appellants-opponents considered that the embodiment mentioned...