tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post1373703524312949475..comments2024-03-18T17:10:35.838+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Requests to correct denied: G 1/10Verónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-72523204073185568262016-04-06T09:07:18.274+01:002016-04-06T09:07:18.274+01:00The second amicus curiae concerned a correction un...The second amicus curiae concerned a correction under R.139 not R.140!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-6022908739411918932012-08-25T16:47:37.206+01:002012-08-25T16:47:37.206+01:00The Enlarged Board was forced to decide as it did ...The Enlarged Board was forced to decide as it did because of the way the patentee was trying to make the correction, i.e. using Rule 140 to open up parallel examination proceedings in which the opponent would not be a party, and using Rule 140 to avoid the opposition division looking at the issue of whether scope had been extended post-grant. So closing the Rule 140 EPC route to corrections to the spec was the only decision possible. This is to the detriment of all patentees because the previous lenient user-friendly approach for correcting the spec post-grant is now no longer available.<br /><br />Merpel asks why correcting the priority claim was not looked into in the decision. The Enlarged Board likes to have parties arguing the different sides of issues to look at something properly. But also they probably realised they can only decide to stop that practice, if forced to decide upon it, and in the meantime they may as well let a lenient approach prevail.hollyiphttp://www.hollyip.comnoreply@blogger.com