EPO Case Law week 19

Noteworthy decisions of week 19 (published 04.05 - 08.05.2015)

T 1756/11 - [C; DE] - third party observations in opposition and opposition appeal - third party observations filed during opposition appeal procedure are normally disregarded, unless they consider claim amendments, or unless parties take position regarding facts or evidence contained in the observations. (Articles 115, 113, 114 EPC, G9/91).

T 0262/13 - Scope of protection extended by specifying a component in more detail (based on T 2017/07) - not: specific salts were already included in dependent claim 3, so claim 3 had same scope. Feature "applying a salt to at least one of said surfaces of said film; said salt comprises between 0.5% and 15% of the weight of said film, wherein said salt is selected from the following group: consisting of: [...]  does not allow use of salts other than those listed, according the board. (Article 123(2))

T 0617/11 - Claim directed to containing laundry tablets, the container having essentially a window with a matching color, for improving visual appearance. Not excluded aesthetic creation presentation of information, as the claim recites a "container" (Article 52(2)(b); (d); T154/04). Board also rejects insufficiency: "[i]n executing the invention, the skilled person will not have the wish to make the invention not work, i.e. he will not locate the viewing region in the container at a position where the tablets cannot be seen; he will not choose light transmissivity materials which will not have the desired effects." Lack of novelty because distinguishing features are aesthetic - fresh ground of opposition not admitted. Objective technical problem of accentuating colour difference is accepted. Claimed container.  is non-obvious. 

T 0992/12 - Examination appeal - refusal of claim including disclaimer (negative features) which was contained in the application as filed - unallowability of disclaimer to exclude non-working embodiments (G1/03) does not apply if disclaimer is contained in application as filed - "the Board is not aware of a provision of the EPC requiring a European patent application to also provide a full disclosure of the reasons for which a claim of the application as filed was drafted to comprise limitations expressed in terms of disclaimers".

T 0081/14 [B] - Claim 8 is directed to the use of the sintered cemented carbide body obtained according to the method of any one of claims 1 to 7 for the production of a cutting tool. The rule that a product may only be defined as a product-by-process claim if it can not be defined by structural features, applies as well to a claim direct to use of such a product. 

T 0275/12 - If the patentee-appellant requests revocation in appeal, this is to be taken as the withdrawal of the appeal according to established case law. The appeal procedure is terminated. 

T 1677/13 - A technical effect brought forward by patent proprietor for the first time at oral proceedings in opposition-appeal is disregarded as late-filed.