tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post4102834772318005462..comments2023-10-24T14:45:41.342+02:00Comments on K’s Law: J 29/10 – No Country For Old Menorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07992102028406713066noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-45750695086445447832012-03-15T01:16:48.022+01:002012-03-15T01:16:48.022+01:00Thank you, Roufousse, I had not seen the correctio...Thank you, Roufousse, I had not seen the correction because I only read the html version (where the correction is absent). I wonder why the Board even took the time to correct the error as anybody who knows the basics of the EPC would spot the error and know what was meant. <br /><br />Thanks also for your other comments, very interesting, as usual. The eagle eye is all yours.<br /><br />I am always amused when I see attorneys acting in so cheeky a manner. They would be capable of asking the Grim Reaper himself to grant them an extension of time.oliverhttp://k-slaw.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-75786146205129995042012-03-14T17:21:38.718+01:002012-03-14T17:21:38.718+01:00Hi Oliver,
Just in case this detail escaped your ...Hi Oliver,<br /><br />Just in case this detail escaped your eagle eye...<br /><br />Have you noticed that the incorrect reference to Article 122 you had noticed was rectified under Rule 140 on the last page? It's the first time I see a correction of this type.<br /><br />The decision was modified on 8 March according to the PDF data, and placed online on 12.03 around 18:00 according to the HTTP data.<br /><br />The search opinion was issued on 18.05.2008, and the applicant had to reply to the automatic 2001A communication under Art. 94(3) ultimately on or about 23.07.2009. That's 14 months in all.<br /><br />The applicant had quite a long time to decide on a course of action, and presumably requested examination in full knowledge of the written opinion.<br /><br />The communication according to Rule 112(2) went out on 31.08.2009. This is a bit faster than usual. Nevertheless, by paying a mere 210 EUR (today: 225 EUR) the reply could be filed up to about 10.10.2009, in all 17 months after receiving the opinion. Not too bad a deal, I think.<br /><br />If that wasn't enough, the reply could have included a request for an OPs, mechanically buying more time in the process. I find it curious that it did not, essentially considering the somewhat lightweight nature of the argument (singular) in defense of inventive step, namely that the document D1 was "more than fifteen years old". <br /><br />This appeal was somewhat a case of throwing good money after bad. The grounds for appeal are entertaining. Where did this overburdened fellow find the time to research and write as many as 17 pages to vent his discontentment?<br /><br />This reminds me of a certain rep who hat the chutzpah to demand the payment by the office of an amount equal to the fee for further processing because, in his opinion, the examiner took too long to consider his brilliant arguments.<br /><br />In any case, this whole business prolonged the procedure by three years...Roufousse T. Fairflynoreply@blogger.com