Bayramoglu Law Offices LLC
+1 (702) 462-5973
ask@bayramoglu-legal.com
Twitter
  • HOME
  • ABOUT US
  • PRACTICE AREAS
    • PATENT
    • TRADEMARK
    • COPYRIGHT
    • LITIGATION
    • BUSINESS LAW
  • TEAM
  • NEWS
  • CAREERS
  • CONTACT

Blog

Another Success Story For Our Client

October 15, 2020adminNewsNo Comments

This is a good example of we never give up and do anything we can for our client to get a successful result.

 

This is an application at the European Patent Office (EPO) where the case received an oral proceeding notice after several office communications.

 

The last office action rejected all claims under Article 83 EPC, Article 84 EPC, Article 56 EPC.

 

Upon receiving the last office action, we set up an interview with the Examiner. During the interview, the Examiner pointed out that it would be very challenging if not impossible to overcome these rejections and especially Article 123(2) EPC and Article 83 EPC rejection.

 

Consequently, we participated to the oral hearing with three Examiners. The oral hearing took approximately 9 hours 40 minutes. At the end of the hearing the Examining Committee decided to allow the case with minor amendments to independent claim.

 

We made the following arguments to bring this case having no hope for allowance to allowable case.

 

  1. We argued under Article 83 EPC and Rule 88 EPC that there was an obvious mistake and the mistake would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art given the disclosure. We used board decisions such as G3/89 and G11/91 to support our arguments. After we made our arguments, Examining Committee agreed with our arguments and allowed us to amend the specification to eliminate ambiguity in the specification by deleting two sections of the specification that cause ambiguity.

 

  1. Next, we addressed Article 84 rejection. Upon overcoming Article 83 EPC rejection, we were also able to overcome Article 84 EPC rejection.

 

  1. We then moved to arguing against Article 56 EPC Inventive Step rejection. We argued against each rejection one by one using all prior arts cited by the Examiner in the office communication. We were able to overcome all rejections except one rejection which is an inventive step rejection based on the combination of prior arts D1 and D8. We argued against this combination and stated that this would be an “ex post facto” analysis which means the Examiner is using the Application claim as a road map to find claim limitations in the prior art.

 

  1. After our arguments and after a brief recess, the Examining Committee agreed to allow the application with minor amendment to independent claim.
admin
Previous Post USPTO extends certain CARES Act relief for small and micro entities Next Post Success Story for Our Client after Appealing the Case

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Archives

  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • October 2020
  • July 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • May 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • December 2017
  • June 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • April 2016
  • December 2014
  • September 2014
  • July 2014

Every Person Who Walks Through Our Door Is
Important To Us

Request Consultatıon
Our Expertises

º Patent
º Trademark
º Copyright
º Litigation Srv.
º Business Law

USA

1540 W.Warm Springs Road
Suite: 100 Henderson,
Nevada 89104 USA
Phone: +1 (702) 462 5973
ask@bayramoglu-legal.com

605 North Michigan Avenue
4th Floor – #5456
Chicago, IL 60611
Phone: +1 (702) 462 5973
ask@bayramoglu-legal.com

EUROPE

Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Bulvarı,
5387.Cadde Beytepe, 06800,
Çankaya, Ankara, Turkey

CHINA

Room C503 5/F, SCE Building No:212, Gaoqi Nanwu Road, Huli District, Xiamen City, Fujian Province, China

HOME PAGE

SITE MAP

CONTACT

© 2021 | bayramoglu-legal.com | Designed by ANL Creative