tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post6845539515446273829..comments2023-10-24T14:45:41.342+02:00Comments on K’s Law: T 146/07 – Unsignedorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07992102028406713066noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-41405238363672892252011-12-24T17:56:17.751+01:002011-12-24T17:56:17.751+01:00- what if the case was that the "observer&quo...- what if the case was that the "observer" merely wanted the material to be officially on file? There was still the chance that it would be taken at face value, rather than being shut out on "procedural economy grounds". <br /><br />The file has been poisoned successfully, the phrasing "Thus, the anonymous observations under Article 115 EPC received on 18 January 2011 are deemed not to have been filed and are disregarded by the board.[p. 16]" notwithstanding. They were disregarded as far as the decision goes but not completely.<br /><br />Procedural and other economy is obtained for the potential infringer if sure-fire prior art is deposited by means of an observation. However, it would still be advisable to have a qualified European Patent Attorney write it.<br /><br />Oliver, a whole Politically Correct Holiday Season without your vigilant eye - we shudder at the thought. Thank you, and we look forward to joining you in the New Year.<br /><br />Best wishes,<br /><br /><br />George Brock-NannestadAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-879438441931216002011-12-23T17:21:05.042+01:002011-12-23T17:21:05.042+01:00J-Dub, thanks for raising this interesting point, ...J-Dub, thanks for raising this interesting point, which I also overlooked.Rimbaudnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-36289974924261842642011-12-23T13:08:33.791+01:002011-12-23T13:08:33.791+01:00Oh, I always thought the « P » in CPI meant « pail...Oh, I always thought the « P » in CPI meant « paille » … ;-)oliverhttp://k-slaw.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-56523035305805358912011-12-23T12:36:03.533+01:002011-12-23T12:36:03.533+01:00Hi, in the case of a French "CPI", it is...Hi, in the case of a French "CPI", it is in any case very disputable that you may act as a straw man at the EPO.<br />Namely, the Règlement Intérieur de la CNCPI states that you have to behave like a CPI "at all times", and forbids acting like a straw man.<br />However debatable this may seem, this point is often overlooked (quite to their advantage) by the majority of CPI exercing as European attorneys.<br />In other words, whether acting at the EPO or elsewhere, you still remain as CPI, and as such you cannot work as a straw man.J-Dubnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-17220555803710999602011-12-23T05:14:07.749+01:002011-12-23T05:14:07.749+01:00S+S also takes the view that A. 115 observations c...S+S also takes the view that A. 115 observations can only address "patentability", i.e., Art. 52 to 57, which are found under that particular heading. It nevertheless appears to acknowledge in a footnote that this narrow interpretation is not universally shared, as I noted in <a href="http://europeanpatentcaselaw.blogspot.com/2011/08/observations-de-tiers-electroniques.html" rel="nofollow">Laurent's</a> blog. I still haven't located the original Teschemacher reference.<br /><br />Looking at the particulars of the case I'd say that the decision was something of a sleigh of hand. The board could have easily dismissed the TPO on a number of other grounds.<br /><br />Visser mentions cases where signed with fantasy names such as "Buzz Lightyear". I wonder how this board would have reacted to that. And what if it was not that obvious that the identification was invented?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com