tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post5690464581167859365..comments2023-10-24T14:45:41.342+02:00Comments on K’s Law: T 278/09 – On Sheets And Other Paperworkorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07992102028406713066noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-53645698316610601302011-06-05T14:16:48.893+02:002011-06-05T14:16:48.893+02:00Well, the reasoning in T 55/01 hinges on the fact ...Well, the reasoning in T 55/01 hinges on the fact that TV sets are mass-produced consumer products which are rapidly distributed to the market without any obligation of confidentiality. Pigments mixtures are not like that, so T 55/01 does not apply.<br /><br />There seem to be more reasons to distinguish the situation in T 278/09 from that in T 55/01, e.g. the product specification sheet may not have been provided to buyers at all together with the mixture or only under an obligation of confidentiality, but the Board probably did not want to repeat itself.Myshkinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-15897248491258179492011-05-27T09:56:39.834+02:002011-05-27T09:56:39.834+02:00I can't be alone in thinking that the reason n...I can't be alone in thinking that the reason not to follow T 55/01 is awful. Since when has availability to a <b>mass</b> market been an indicator of the availability under Art 54 or 56? Unless the Board concluded that there was some nefarious plan to stockpile pigments at a hidden location (see page 12 of T 55/01) then there is no reason to ignore the reasons of T 55/01Dr Znoreply@blogger.com