[1] As apparent from the minutes of the oral proceedings, after the discussion on the inventive step of the first embodiment of claim 1 (polystyrene) had taken place and the board had signalled a positive finding, the [opponent] requested that the request not be admitted into the proceedings, insofar the method of claim 1 involved the use of a container made or coated with polyethylene terephthalate, the reason put forward for this procedural request being that said embodiment had not been specifically searched.
[2] Indeed a claim directed specifically to such an embodiment had never been submitted until the main request was filed on 11 February 2010.
Nevertheless, claim 1 as filed, on the basis of which the search was carried out, with the general expression “a material inhibiting the activation of a substance degrading the peptides”, when read in the light of the description […], included inter alia polyethylene terephthalate as one of the preferred materials. Thus, it can be reasonably presumed that the search was complete.
To read the whole decision, please click here.
0 comments:
Post a Comment