Read it for yourself: Enlarged Board decision Art 23 1/15
Merpel hopes that readers who don't follow the goings-on in Eponia will forgive her for a final posting in what has been a busy week. She knows however that some of her readers are waiting with ill-contained excitement to see the text of the Enlarged Board's decision under Article 23, alluded to yesterday.
A copy of the text of the Enlarged Board decision is available to view and download here.
We are used to seeing G-series and R-series decisions from the Enlarged Board, but this decision and the procedural framework within which it issued are new territory for all concerned. Therefore the case gets a unique numbering and the official Case Number appears to be "Art 23 1/15".
Merpel's link does not point to the actual document as issued by the Enlarged Board, but rather to a slightly transmoggified version. If you spot a formatting or typographical oddity, it's down to Merpel. Don't ask why, simply accept that kats are largely incomprehensible creatures. However, Merpel did not redact details of the allegations and evidence (or lack thereof) -- that was the Enlarged Board's own doing for obvious reasons.
For some reason the EPO has not seen fit to publish this Enlarged Board decision on its website in the usual speedy fashion we have come to expect. Perhaps the top management is enjoying it too much to share with the world. Merpel, who has read it with equal interest, isn't so selfish. She looks forward to your comments.
A copy of the text of the Enlarged Board decision is available to view and download here.
We are used to seeing G-series and R-series decisions from the Enlarged Board, but this decision and the procedural framework within which it issued are new territory for all concerned. Therefore the case gets a unique numbering and the official Case Number appears to be "Art 23 1/15".
Merpel's link does not point to the actual document as issued by the Enlarged Board, but rather to a slightly transmoggified version. If you spot a formatting or typographical oddity, it's down to Merpel. Don't ask why, simply accept that kats are largely incomprehensible creatures. However, Merpel did not redact details of the allegations and evidence (or lack thereof) -- that was the Enlarged Board's own doing for obvious reasons.
For some reason the EPO has not seen fit to publish this Enlarged Board decision on its website in the usual speedy fashion we have come to expect. Perhaps the top management is enjoying it too much to share with the world. Merpel, who has read it with equal interest, isn't so selfish. She looks forward to your comments.
***************************************
Reminder for commenters: As has been true with Merpel's EPO posts for some time, and as is now the general IPKat policy, comment-posters are required to identify themselves via a pseudonym if they don't want to use their own names, since there are far too many people called "Anonymous" and it can be difficult-to-impossible to work out which Anonymous is which [if any anonymous posts get through, it's by accident -- not a change of policy]. Also, Merpel moderates EPO-related comments quite heavily, knowing that some readers get so exercised that they forget the normal standards of comment etiquette (or even of libel laws).