3.2.4 Further examples involving easily identifiable deficiencies

Decision T 460/95 (interlocutory decision of 16.7.96) found that in the case in point the irregularity was obvious and easy to identify, and the appellant could easily have put it right during the time remaining. The registrar, when he received the request for an extension, could and indeed should have seen that it was based on a misunderstanding during a telephone conversation.

The principle of legitimate expectations was applied in J 11/89 where the Receiving Section failed to take any particular action upon the receipt of patent documents intended to be considered as priority documents, but whose priority was not claimed in the request for grant.

Quick Navigation