Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A Rule 62a EPC objection may however be contested by the applicant in its reply to the search division or, later, before the examining division. [17] If the search division finds that its initial objection was not justified in view of the applicant's arguments, the search will then be carried out on an unlimited basis. [17]
An opposition can be based on the grounds that the subject-matter of the patent is not patentable (Article 100(a) EPC, for instance because the claimed invention is not new or not inventive), on the ground that the invention is insufficiently disclosed to allow a person skilled in the art to carry it out (Article 100(b) EPC), or on the ground ...
EPO headquarters in Munich, Germany, where the Boards of Appeal were based until 2017.. Decisions of the first instance departments of the European Patent Office (EPO) can be appealed, i.e. challenged, before the Boards of Appeal of the EPO, in a judicial procedure (proper to an administrative court), as opposed to an administrative procedure. [1]
Under the former version of Rule 36 EPC, an objection of lack of unity of invention raised in a communication of the Examining Division could trigger a 24-month period for filing a divisional application, if the particular objection was raised for the first time. However, under the amended version of Rule 36 EPC which came into effect in April ...
These two procedures were introduced in the recently revised text of the European Patent Convention (EPC), i.e. the so-called EPC 2000, which entered into force on 13 December 2007. The new Articles 105a, 105b and 105c EPC (of the EPC 2000) form the legal basis of the limitation and revocation procedures.
The European Patent Convention (EPC), the multilateral treaty providing the legal system according to which European patents are granted, contains provisions regarding whether a natural or juristic person (i.e., a party to the proceedings) needs to be represented in proceedings before the European Patent Office (EPO).
March 19, 1986, T 51/84 (Coded distinctive mark/Stockburger). [2] The Board held that if a claim focuses solely on procedural steps involved in applying a coded distinctive mark to an object without indicating or presupposing technical means for carrying them out, a process of this kind is excluded from patentability by Article 52(2)(c) and (3) EPC.
Under Rule 106 EPC, "a petition under Article 112a, paragraph 2(a) to (d), is only admissible where an objection in respect of the procedural defect was raised during the appeal proceedings and dismissed by the Board of Appeal, except where such objection could not be raised during the appeal proceedings."