tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post2478500201576944000..comments2023-10-24T14:45:41.342+02:00Comments on K’s Law: T 563/11 – The Silence Of The Caterpillarorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07992102028406713066noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-44835249993194399842012-12-10T20:25:51.022+01:002012-12-10T20:25:51.022+01:00The board seems to have overlooked another apparen...The board seems to have overlooked another apparent deficiency of the attacked decision: it was <a href="https://register.epo.org/espacenet/application?documentId=EQ53GM0R7019FI4&number=EP99910299&lng=en&npl=false" rel="nofollow">signed</a> by three examiners, but its <a href="https://register.epo.org/espacenet/application?documentId=EQ53GMNL6594FI4&number=EP99910299&lng=en&npl=false" rel="nofollow">cover</a> mentions <i>four</i> names, including a jurist from DG5.<br /><br />I'm not sure whether the discrepancy between both forms stem from a software bug, or because the forms were prepared at different points in time. I wonder which of the computer database or the physical file cover are authoritative.<br /><br />I think that what might have happened is that the division might have tried (too) hard to avoid a procedural error, and requested its augmentation when there was a doubt as to the status of the opponent. How long the fourth member stayed on board, and whether you can reduce it back to three members isn't clear to me.<br /><br />There is a slight irony: because there was a doubt about the identities of one of the parties, the identities of the members of the division changed. If there hadn't been this problem at the OPPO OP a decision would probably have been pronounced back in 2006.Roufousse T. Fairflynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-26282763053951829532012-12-10T07:55:52.344+01:002012-12-10T07:55:52.344+01:00And there it goes for the next seven years ...And there it goes for the next seven years ...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com