tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post5484844909021556843..comments2024-03-28T16:45:51.051+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Upper Class seat -- no patent or design infringementVerónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-68920333751071359132009-02-02T11:36:00.000+00:002009-02-02T11:36:00.000+00:00It seems as a very comfortable seat indeed, disput...It seems as a very comfortable seat indeed, dispute or not. But what if 2 travellers want to sit together? How would that work out with these seats?<BR/>Take care,<BR/>ElliAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-65513663135723708862009-01-23T14:53:00.000+00:002009-01-23T14:53:00.000+00:00I commend to readers the Summons of Dec 22, 2008 t...I commend to readers the Summons of Dec 22, 2008 to oral proceedings before the opposition division on March 31. Only one of the three Opponents (Premium, German attorney) thought 100(c) worth a shot so, not surprisingly, the OD was not impressed. So, there we have it: Messrs Comel, Vecchio and Fittante see no problem with new matter yet Mr Lewison does. Another reason to favour English drafters? Meanwhile, I wonder what the OD will decide on March 31, now that they have the English Decision to help them with Art 123(2).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-81541732409554650052009-01-23T13:57:00.000+00:002009-01-23T13:57:00.000+00:00Great case for educational purposes Jeremy. I sing...Great case for educational purposes Jeremy. I single out:<BR/><BR/> 1) para 283 and 341 as a lesson for drafters of patent applications. Using the dead triangle behind the seat, to increase the length of the bed, was a great idea, new and not obvious, but (sadly) not well enough flagged up as such in the appln as filed. In the divisional, too late, putting that right added matter to the original filing. No wonder the UK has the world's best drafters. They need to be.<BR/><BR/> 2) Para 186 and 206. BA's GB-A-2326824 as "D1" in the patent in suit, the significance in Rule 29 EPC 1973 of those two inconspicuous words "in combination", and why those who don't know PSA shouldn't have to read a c-i-t claim.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com