European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2014:T087209.20140408 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Date of decision: | 08 April 2014 | ||||||||
Case number: | T 0872/09 | ||||||||
Application number: | 01924446.6 | ||||||||
IPC class: | G01N 27/327 C12Q 1/00 |
||||||||
Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
Distribution: | C | ||||||||
Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
Title of application: | RAPID RESPONSE GLUCOSE SENSOR | ||||||||
Applicant name: | Diabetes Diagnostics, Inc. | ||||||||
Opponent name: | Roche Diagnostics GmbH | ||||||||
Board: | 3.4.02 | ||||||||
Headnote: | - | ||||||||
Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
Keywords: | Novelty - (no) Novelty - ambiguous feature Late-filed request - admitted (no) Late-filed request - request not defended before opposition division |
||||||||
Catchwords: |
1. Novelty The claimed sensor is defined by reference to characteristics of its response when used in a measurement set-up. Since none of the determining aspects of the measurement set-up is defined in claim 1, the technical features of the claimed sensor which are responsible for providing the measurement referred to in the claim remain obscure. Legal certainty requires that a claimed subject-matter cannot be regarded as novel over the prior art on the basis of an ambiguous feature. Hence, defining a functional feature of the claimed sensor under undefined operating conditions is not appropriate to provide any distinction of the claimed sensor over the prior art sensors (see points 1.2 and 1.3 of the Reasons) 2. Admittance of auxiliary requests None of the patentee's auxiliary requests were admitted into the proceedings because the patentee, during the first-instance opposition proceedings, deliberately chose not to defend any single auxiliary request, even though it was aware of the fact that its main request had not been found allowable by the opposition division (see points 2 and 3 of the Reasons). |
||||||||
Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
Citing decisions: |
|
Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t090872eu1.html
Date retrieved: 17 May 2021