T 1987/16 - Need to actively maintain objections in appeal

Key points

• The Board finds that claim 1 has basis in the application as filed, contrary to the Opposition Division. The opponent, respondent in appeal, had submitted inventive step objections in the Notice of opposition.
• "The respondent did not reply to the appeal. Therefore no further objections to the claims of the main request need to be considered (Articles 12(3) and 25(2) RPBA 2020 and Article 12(4) RPBA 2007). In addition, the board saw no reason to examine any of the further grounds for opposition of its own motion."
  
• Note, the representative of the opponent has signed a receipt acknowledgement for the summons.

EPO T 1987/16 -  link



10. In conclusion, and in contrast to the opposition division, the board finds that the application as filed provides a basis for a method as referred to in claim 1 with regard to all of the promoters referred to in dependent claim 2. As no further added subject matter objections were put forward, the subject-matter of claims 1 and 2 must be held not to extend beyond the content of the application as filed (Article 100(c) EPC).

Further grounds referred to in the notice of opposition: Article 100(a) in combination with Article 56 EPC and Article 100(b) EPC

11. The respondent did not reply to the appeal. Therefore no further objections to the claims of the main request need to be considered (Articles 12(3) and 25(2) RPBA 2020 and Article 12(4) RPBA 2007). In addition, the board saw no reason to examine any of the further grounds for opposition of its own motion.

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The decision under appeal is set aside.

2. The patent is maintained as granted.