tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post1135188458385943954..comments2023-10-24T14:45:41.342+02:00Comments on K’s Law: T 747/10 – Let’s Be Subjectiveorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07992102028406713066noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-61374678780744219142011-07-16T01:04:27.965+02:002011-07-16T01:04:27.965+02:00Let me add that Michael has more to say on these d...Let me add that Michael has more to say on these decisions in a recent post on his blog (<a href="http://germanip.blogspot.com/2011/07/essentiallity-test-revisited-deleting.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>)oliverhttp://k-slaw.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-84184883982403800952011-07-13T11:27:53.789+02:002011-07-13T11:27:53.789+02:00For the sake of historical completeness, I would l...For the sake of historical completeness, I would like to note that the decision T 331/87 clearly starts from US-A-4 063 059 being the closes prior art (cf. item 7.1 of this decision) and thus from the objective technical problem and not from the subjective one (the objective problem is mentioned in the specification such that this question made no difference in that case).<br /><br />Further, I think that the choice of the technical problem is relevant for condition (ii) rather than (i).Michael Thesenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11216937613426928728noreply@blogger.com