T 0996/18 - Art. 123(2) ex officio in opposition appeal

 Key points

• In this opposition appeal, the headnote in machine translation reads: “Claims which the patent proprietor has changed by adding features from the description but which have not been examined in opposition proceedings must be examined ex officio in appeal proceedings to determine whether they comply with Article 123(2) EPC (Article 114( 1) EPC, Rule 100(1) EPC).”
• The Board adds to that headnote that otherwise, under certain circumstances, an item would be granted that would only be subject to the disposition of the parties because it would not have been subjected to an examination by the Office at any time (still in translation).
• The opponent(s) had only invoked lack of novelty and lack of inventive step in the opposition. The OD had rejected the opposition. The Board finds the main request and AR-1 and AR-2 to lack an inventive step. The Board then turns to AR-4 filed with the Statement of grounds. Therein claim 1 is amended inter alia by adding a feature taken from the description. The opponent has no objection under Article 123(2) EPC (r.5.1.1). 
• As a comment, if the amendment had been limiting to one of the dependent claims, then Art. 123(2) would (possibly) be a new ground of opposition in appeal and G10/91 r.18 states that such grounds can only be considered with the consent of the patentee. The present decision applies G10/91, r.19: “in case of amendments of the claims ... in the course of opposition or appeal proceedings, such amendments are to be fully examined as to their compatibility with the requirements of the EPC (e.g. with regard to the provisions of Article 123(2) and (3) EPC).”
• The fact that the feature is taken from the description, not from a granted claim, makes that it is the amendment that is fully examined.
• As to the Board raising new objections ex officio in inter partes appeals, see also recent decision T1370/15; as well as T2154/15 explaining that Art. 12 and 13 RPBA 2020 “exclusively rule on the parties' procedural possibilities and not on the board's powers”.

EPO T 0996/18 

epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t180996du1.html

5.1.1 Die Beschwerdeführerinnen haben zu Hilfsantrag 4 keine Einwände unter Artikel 123 (2) EPÜ vorgebracht.

Für Ansprüche, die der Patentinhaber durch die Aufnahme von Merkmalen aus der Beschreibung geändert hat, die jedoch im Einspruchsverfahren nicht überprüft wurden, ist im Beschwerdeverfahren von Amts wegen zu prüfen, ob sie im Einklang mit Artikel 123 (2) EPÜ stehen (Artikel 114 (1) EPÜ, Regel 100 (1) EPÜ und G 10/91 EPA Abl. 1993, 420, Gründe, 19). Anderenfalls würde unter Umständen ein Gegenstand gewährt, der allein der Disposition der Parteien unterläge, weil er zu keinem Zeitpunkt einer amtlichen Prüfung unterzogen worden wäre.

Im vorliegenden Fall hat die Kammer die Einwände unter Artikel 123 (2) EPÜ erstmalig während der mündlichen Verhandlung vorgebracht. Um den Grundsatz des rechtlichen Gehörs (Artikel 113 (1) EPÜ) und der Waffengleichheit zu wahren, wurde der Beschwerdeführerin Gelegenheit geben, sich zu den Einwänden zu äußern und die Einwände durch das Einreichen eines neuen Hilfsantrags auszuräumen.