⚠ Low-confidence extraction
The structured fields below were difficult to extract reliably from this decision. Treat parties, prior art and outcome as indicative and verify against the source PDF.
- • source text is identical to the cached decision for design No 9 189 301-0001
- • decision text addresses design No 9 189 301-0001 rather than this decision_id
Other appeal · Board of Appeal · 2024-03-05
R2193/2023-3
Contested design: 009189301-0003
Outcome
The contested decision is annulled to the extent that the examiner failed to consider view No 1.8, and the case is remitted to the examiner for further examination.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Annuls the contested decision to the extent that the examiner did not take view No 1.8 into account in the examination of the application. 2. Remits the case to the examiner for further examination.
CostsNot specified
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Vuzix Corporationvia PDF extraction
United States (US)
25 Hendrix Road, Suite A, 14586 West Henrietta, United States
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
No opposing holder — Other appeal · Board of Appeal.
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant challenged the examiner’s refusal to register the smartglasses design with the original seven views, alternatively with replacement views, or at least with views No 1.2 and 1.8 while keeping the original filing date.
- ›There was no opposing private party; this was an ex parte appeal against the examiner’s registration decision limiting the protected representation to view No 1.2.
- ›The Board agreed that the original seven views were unclear and that replacement views filed later could not keep the original filing date, but it held that the examiner should have considered additional view No 1.8 because it formed part of the original application.
- ›The decision was annulled in part and the case was remitted so the examiner can assess view No 1.8.
Deciding panel
- ChairS. Stürmann
- RapporteurE. Fink
- MemberA. Pohlmann
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| deDeutsch (de) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esespañol (es) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| ititaliano (it) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| enEnglish | original | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
Similar decisions
Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.
| Case | Date | Outcome | Shared grounds | Locarno | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2193/2023-3 | 2024-03-05 | Decision annulled | Art 4(1)(e), Art 4(2), Art 36(1)(c) | — | 9 |
| R2193/2023-3 | 2024-03-05 | Decision annulled | Art 4(1)(e), Art 4(2), Art 36(1)(c) | — | 9 |
| R2254/2023-3 | 2024-07-09 | Decision annulled | Art 4(1)(e) | — | 5 |
| R2254/2023-3 | 2024-07-09 | Decision annulled | Art 4(1)(e) | — | 5 |
| R2254/2023-3 | 2024-07-09 | Decision annulled | Art 4(1)(e) | — | 5 |
| R2254/2023-3 | 2024-07-09 | Decision annulled | Art 4(1)(e) | — | 5 |
| R2254/2023-3 | 2024-07-09 | Decision annulled | Art 4(1)(e) | — | 5 |
| R2254/2023-3 | 2024-07-09 | Decision annulled | Art 4(1)(e) | — | 5 |