tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post3165838529133607047..comments2024-03-19T06:27:47.905+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Gebundene EntscheidungenVerónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-29118823756543089132017-12-18T14:56:40.354+00:002017-12-18T14:56:40.354+00:00It's an awesome post in favor of all the inter...It's an awesome post in favor of all the internet <br />users; they will take benefit from it I am sure.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-40239966186008992392009-04-08T12:09:00.000+01:002009-04-08T12:09:00.000+01:00Jeremy, your other blog mentioned the references h...Jeremy, your other blog mentioned the references <BR/><BR/>http://class46.eu/2008/04/federal-patent-court-references-to-ecj.htmlPetranoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-24765265599834412792009-04-07T22:04:00.000+01:002009-04-07T22:04:00.000+01:00I'm not very familiar with trademark law, but does...I'm not very familiar with trademark law, but does it not make sense that whether something is descriptive or not is a question that must be answered on the basis of the law only, and is not a matter of discretion of the administrative deciding body?<BR/><BR/>For example, EPO examiners have no legal discretion in deciding on inventive step. This implies for example that a Board of Appeal does not have to respect how the Examining or Opposition Division exercised its discretion regarding inventive step as long as it exercised this discretion "reasonably".<BR/><BR/>It also implies that the EPO Guidelines on inventive step are not real "guidelines" that regulate (and inform the public about) the discretion of the Division, but are merely an attempt at a correct interpretation of Article 56 EPC. (Of course, other parts of the EPO Guidelines _are_ real guidelines, e.g. those about allowing a request for extension of a time limit, R. 132(2) EPC.)<BR/><BR/>Once there is discretion, principles such as equal treatment come into play. Without discretion, equal treatment is already guaranteed by the fact that the law is the same for all applicant.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-1891147172644021412009-04-07T18:43:00.000+01:002009-04-07T18:43:00.000+01:00The USPTO takes the position that its examiners ar...The USPTO takes the position that its examiners are not bound the registration decisions of other past or present examiners.mcvootynoreply@blogger.com