tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post1467261651856295242..comments2023-10-24T14:45:41.342+02:00Comments on K’s Law: T 1020/13 – One For Allorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07992102028406713066noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-80528721994828802142013-11-28T23:36:43.409+01:002013-11-28T23:36:43.409+01:00From what I understand from the reasons, the uncle...From what I understand from the reasons, the unclear feature had been objected to earlier in the proceedings. The applicant had tried to overcome the objection by argument and by adding a further feature. In the refusal, the Division explained why it did not agree with the arguments and why the added feature did not render the feature objected to clear. According to the Board, this did not infringe Art. 113(1).<br /><br />So it is probably less remarkable than what you gathered from the machine translation. While it is true that the Division had not raised the clarity objection in respect of the refused claim, it only follows from this decision that filing arbitrary amendments does not force the ED to repeat essentially unchanged objections in yet another communication. If the objection has been sufficiently explained and the applicant fails to address the core of the objection but only makes some cosmetic amendments and argues "different claim so objection is now moot", then an ED may refuse.Myshkinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-54377760317429006332013-11-28T10:01:42.844+01:002013-11-28T10:01:42.844+01:00Not being able to speak German and having to rely ...Not being able to speak German and having to rely on the machine translation of reason it seems that the reason the opponent's right to heard was not violated is because clarity had already been raised in the proceedings, just not in respect of the refused claims.<br /><br />If that is correct, that seems remarkably generous to the EDDrZnoreply@blogger.com