tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post3197823622075135111..comments2023-10-24T14:45:41.342+02:00Comments on K’s Law: T 1912/08 – Ouch, Those Teeth!orhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07992102028406713066noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-21337624029717030342011-10-01T22:22:08.046+02:002011-10-01T22:22:08.046+02:00The decision of the ED certainly looks correct but...The decision of the ED certainly looks correct but hasn't the board gone a little over the top with its objection to the amended claim? As far as I understand it, the relative dimensions of the tooth play no significant role in the definition of what is now claimed.At a guess I would say the board would have done the claim for lack of novelty/inventive step anyway, so took what looked like the easier way out. And who can blame them?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com