tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post2003165208282139643..comments2023-10-24T14:45:41.342+02:00Comments on K’s Law: J 3/09 – A Modern Hans-in-luckorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07992102028406713066noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-55685054077660301302010-07-16T00:19:18.705+02:002010-07-16T00:19:18.705+02:00Yeah, of course, as always, my personal opinion is...Yeah, of course, as always, my personal opinion is just that: a personal opinion. There is plenty of room for disagreement. This being said, if you have knowledge of concrete cases where the ED changed its mind, please leave the references and I shall publicly repent ;-)Oliverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14069112323977591767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-74473602432496949712010-07-15T16:19:54.658+02:002010-07-15T16:19:54.658+02:00"Personally, I have never seen the ED invalid..."Personally, I have never seen the ED invalidate an objection of lack of unity made by the EPO acting as ISA, and I guess it hardly ever happens."<br /><br />I believe it is not exceptional that an applicant succeeds in convincing an ED that an objection on novelty or inventive step cannot be maintained (without amending the claims). It is not different here: the applicant should provide convincing arguments as to why the originally filed claims did not lack unity.<br /><br />In all such cases, if the ED wrongly maintains its objection, the applicant can "win" in appeal.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com