T 1930/12 - No video conference BoA

EPO T 1930/12

For the decision, click here  (online on date: 06.07.2015)

Keypoints

• In this examination appeal, the BoA refuses a request for oral proceedings via video-conferencing, because (i) the RPBA provide no rules for video-conferencing, and (ii) it was not clear how it can be ensured that the oral proceedings are public in such case.
• GL E-II, 11.1.1. states that " Oral proceedings by video-conference are permitted only in the case of ex parte proceedings before an Examining Division. "
• The second ground may possibly be caused by a lack of video conference equipment in the public part of the Isar Building, while the video conference rooms used by the Examining Division are likely not publicly accessible.

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The appeal is against the decision of the examining division to refuse the present European patent application on the grounds of lack of inventive step (Article 56 EPC) [...]

Reasons for the Decision

1. The appeal is admissible.

2. Request for oral proceedings via video-conference

In its letter of 27 March 2015, the appellant requested that the oral proceedings before the board be held as a video-conference (point IV above). The board refused this request for the following reasons:

2.1 On the one hand, video-conferences before an examining division are subject to the rules set out in the "Updated information from the EPO dated 1 May 2012 concerning interviews and oral proceedings to be held as a video-conference" (OJ EPO 2012, 354, replacing the earlier version published in OJ EPO 2006, 585). There are presently no corresponding provisions for the Boards of Appeal. In particular, there are no provisions concerning video-conferences in the Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal (RPBA).

2.2 On the other hand, oral proceedings held before the examining division are, in accordance with Article 116(3) EPC, not public, whereas those before the Boards of Appeal are public pursuant to Article 116(4) EPC. In any future arrangements concerning video-conferences in appeal proceedings, it would be necessary to ensure that the use of video-conferencing is reconciled with the requirement that second-instance oral proceedings are public.

2.3 As those two issues have not yet been clarified, the board was not in a position to allow the appellant's request (see T 1266/07, point 1).