tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post3626297407916434932..comments2023-10-24T14:45:41.342+02:00Comments on K’s Law: R 1/12 – There Are Limitsorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07992102028406713066noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-72727744818406700872013-02-22T08:37:52.647+01:002013-02-22T08:37:52.647+01:00@Koen,
I believe the idea behind Art. 113 goes th...@Koen,<br /><br />I believe the idea behind Art. 113 goes the other direction: it is not to give the applicant the right to be heard on the grounds of the decision (when the problem you mention may arise) but it is to safeguard that the decision is based on grounds that the applicant has had the right to be heard.<br />So, the onus is on the deciding Board /division to make sure that the grounds they want to base their decision on, have been discussed by the applicant and not for the applicant to make sure he recognises the grounds the decision is to be based on and make comments on them.<br />I hope I make sense here! (haven't had coffee yet!)Manolisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-39675263197382559952013-02-21T09:47:13.989+01:002013-02-21T09:47:13.989+01:00Hi Koen
I would agree with the EBA. Sure enough,...Hi Koen<br /> <br />I would agree with the EBA. Sure enough, there may be violations of the right to be heard that can only be spotted when the written decision is issued (and in this case a R 106 objection is not required), but during the OPs it is quite clear what is being discussed. If the debate concentrates on what the closest prior art is, and the Board refuses to let you comment on it, then you are clearly aware of the violation (and should unsheathe the R 106 sword).<br /><br />This is why I like this decision - because it states things so clearly.oliverhttp://k-slaw.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-62513836430631605272013-02-21T08:36:08.100+01:002013-02-21T08:36:08.100+01:00I find it very surprising that the right to be hea...I find it very surprising that the right to be heard should only extend to the gounds on which the decision is subsequently based, and only on thme. These are not known to the parties during the OPs. It is then strange that an objection under R 106 has to be made expressly during the OPs. At that stage it, under this reasoning, impossible to know if the right to be heard is violated. You would need to have read the decision first.Koen Bijvanknoreply@blogger.com