T 0351/19 - (II) Not obliged to examine the dependent claims

Key points

• In this appeal against a refusal decision, " The additional features of claim 1 of the first auxiliary request are taken from original claims 5, 6 and 7."
• The Board: "Formally, the dependent claims were addressed in the contested decision[...]. However, where an independent claim falls, the Examining Division is not obliged to examine the dependent claims, and where it chooses to comment on them, such comments may often be brief and somewhat incomplete,"
• "this appears to be the case here. For example, claim 6 is dismissed as defining only "further non-technical aspects", whereas in fact it defines inter alia the use of a beacon device, an identifier of a beacon device and [....] , all of which must be considered to be technical features."
• "If the first auxiliary request were admitted into the proceedings it would require the Board either to perform, for the first time, a detailed examination of this subject-matter or to remit the case to the Examining Division for further prosecution under Article 111(1) EPC, neither of which would be a procedurally efficient course of action."
• As a comment, many other patent offices require Examiners to specifically discuss all dependent claims. Such patent offices, on the other hand, typically do not permit the filing of auxiliary requests. 
• As a further comment, the EPO requires payment of (steep) claim fees in case of more than 15 claims. However, as observed by the Board, the EPO's current practice is that "where an independent claim falls, the Examining Division is not obliged to examine the dependent claims, and where it chooses to comment on them, such comments may often be brief and somewhat incomplete". 

EPO 

The link to the decision is provided after the jump, as well as (an extract of) the text of the decision.

T 3024/19 - New attacks in appeal

Key points

• This is a rather straightforward opposition appeal case, except that it is (still) one of the first published decisions to apply the new 'first level of convergence' of the RPBA 2020. 
• The statement of grounds of the opponent contained new objections. The statement of grounds was filed 26.02.2020 so Art. 12 RPBA 2020 applies in its entirety.
• " The objections raised in items 4, 5.3 to 5.7, 6.1 and 6.2 in the statement setting out the grounds of appeal are not directed to facts, objections, arguments and evidence on which the decision under appeal was based, as required by Article Article 12(2) RPBA 2020. Moreover, it has neither been submitted nor demonstrated that these objections were admissibly raised and maintained in the proceedings before the opposition division. The new objections in appeal thus constitute amendments of the appellant's case in the sense of Article 12(4), first paragraph, RPBA 2020, which may be admitted only at the discretion of the Board, whereby reasons should be provided for submitting the amendments in appeal (Article 12(4) 2020, second paragraph)." 
• " The appellant [opponent] argued in the statement setting out the grounds of appeal (section 1) that it had been impossible for them to react appropriately to the filing of the first auxiliary request in opposition (now the main request) since that request had not been filed until the day before the date set under Rule 116(1) EPC."
• " The Board observes that the request was filed on 18 July 2019 and thus two months in advance of the oral proceedings, which took place before the opposition division on 19 September 2019."
• As a comment, it is not clear to me if this means that the opponent should have filed a letter after the Rule 116 date before the OD. Point 1.4.3. of the decision suggest that the attacks should have been presented during the oral proceedings. 
• " Further, as indicated below, the amendments were either taken from granted claims, rather than from the description (see point 1.4.1), or the possibility of raising the objections newly raised in appeal was apparently specifically addressed already during the oral proceedings before the opposition division (see point 1.4.2). Thus, the Board finds that the appellant had reasons to raise those objections already during opposition proceedings." 
• " It is apparent that the objections of lack of sufficiency of disclosure raised by the appellant [] concern features and combination of features that were already present in the granted claims." 
• " Under these circumstances the new objections of lack of sufficiency of disclosure raised in appeal could have been raised before the opposition division in view of the corresponding granted claims. In view of that[,] the date at which the first auxiliary request was filed in the first instance proceedings does not justify the filing of these objections for the first time in the appeal procedure." 
• So it is important to attack all claims as granted and perhaps their combinations as well, already before the OD.
• " As to the other objections raised in appeal[]  it is apparent that at the oral proceedings before the opposition division the opponent did not object to the then first auxiliary request (present main request) under Rule 80 or Article 84 EPC [] and did not maintain their novelty objection against claim 1 of the first auxiliary request over document D10 []  while having the possibility to do so." 
• "The Board therefore does not see any reason why it was not possible for the appellant to raise the objections at the beginning of the opposition proceedings or at the latest at the oral proceedings before the opposition division."
• As a  comment, the new objections could also have been held inadmissible under Art.12(6)(s.2), as it seems that the Board in effect concludes that the new objections should have been filed before the OD (though the Board does not say so).
As a further comment, I'm surprised that the Board does not expressly apply the factors specified in the Art.12(4)(s.5): " The Board shall exercise its discretion in view of, inter alia, (i) the complexity of the amendment, (ii) the suitability of the amendment to address the issues which led to the decision under appeal, (iii) and the need for procedural economy." [roman numerals added]. The fifth sentence uses "shall", not "may" .
• "  In view of the above, the Board finds it appropriate to make use of its discretion pursuant to Article 12(4), first paragraph, second sentence, RPBA 2020 by not admitting into the proceedings the objections" 
• 
  

EPO 

The link to the decision is provided after the jump, as well as (an extract of) the text of the decision.

T 3020/19 - Opponent should attack all granted dependent claims

Key points

•  An auxiliary request filed during the oral proceedings before the Board is admitted.
• The Board takes the view that there is no case amendment under Art. 13(2) RPBA if there is no "geänderte Sachlage bzw. keine Neugewichtung des Verfahrensgegenstands".
• The higher-ranking request had five independent claims 1-5. In the AR at issue, only independent claim 3 is maintained. That claim 3 (new claim 1) in turn was based on dependent claim 7 as granted.
• The original granted dependent claim 7 was not attacked in the Notice of opposition (in substance), nor (in substance) with the opponent's appeal reply brief, even though at that time it was already independent claim 3 of an auxiliary request.
• " Somit kann die Kammer in der Stellung des Hilfsantrags IV in der mündlichen Verhandlung mit Rückgriff auf einen im bisherigen Verfahren nie angegriffenen Gegenstand kein geändertes Beschwerdevorbringen erkennen, das im Sinne von Artikel 13 (2) VOBK 2020 nur ausnahmsweise bei Vorliegen außergewöhnlicher Umstände in das Beschwerdeverfahren zugelassen werden kann." 
• The new substantive attacks against the new claim 1 / former claim 3 are not admitted.
• " Eine erstmalige materialrechtliche Diskussion in der mündlichen Verhandlung im Beschwerdeverfahren in Bezug auf den Gegenstand des Anspruchs 1 des Hilfsantrags IV wurde von der Kammer nicht in das Verfahren zugelassen " 
• The new attack is based on document E5 which was already in the file. Still, the attack is not admitted.
• The Board notes that the opponent had directed the opposition against claims 1-13, claims 2-13 being dependent claims. However, substantive attacks were presented only against independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-6 and 10-13.
• " Insbesondere fehlte es also bereits im Einspruchsschriftsatz an einer substantiierten Argumentation zu einer mangelnden Patentfähigkeit des erteilten Anspruchs 7 (und des von Anspruch 7 abhängigen Anspruchs 8). Auch in ihrer Erwiderung auf das Einreichen von Hilfsanträgen I und II mit ebenfalls jeweils nur 13 Ansprüchen im Einspruchsverfahren (die noch den erteilten abhängigen Anspruch 7 enthielten) ging die Einsprechende nicht auf die Merkmale des erteilten Anspruchs 7 ein." 
• "  eine unzumutbare "Explosion des Prüfstoffs" wie von der Beschwerdegegnerin [opponent] behauptet kann die Kammer nicht erkennen, da die zusätzlichen unabhängigen Ansprüche lediglich Merkmale der erteilten Ansprüche aufgreifen." 

EPO T 3020/19

The link to the decision is provided after the jump, as well as (an extract of) the text of the decision.

T 1038/18 - (II) Art.83 and dependent claims

 Key points

• “The opposition division held in its decision that the requirement of Article 83 EPC was met because, first, the requirements were met by the corresponding independent claim 1 and a dependent claim only represented additional non-essential details of the invention and, second, any potential contradiction with claim 1 would represent a clarity issue, which was not a ground for opposition.
• The board, however, cannot follow the opposition division's arguments because the requirement of sufficiency of disclosure under Articles 100(b) and 83 EPC is not confined to the invention defined in independent claims and ... it also concerns the invention defined in dependent claims referring back to them. 
• In addition, the mere fact that the appellant's objection under Article 100(b) or 83 EPC is based on a possible contradiction and that a contradiction may give rise to an objection of lack of clarity under Article 84 EPC which does not constitute a ground for opposition does - contrary to the opposition division's view - per se not justify omitting consideration of the mentioned objection under Articles 100(b) or 83 EPC.”
• The Board: on the merits of the objection: “Therefore, only a strict literal reading of claims 1 and 7 of auxiliary request 3 without taking into account the limitations imposed by the technical features of the claimed subject-matter would lead to the contradiction alleged by the appellant [opponent].”
• In this case, if the objection would have had merits regarding dependent claim 7, cancelling dependent claim 7 would have addressed the issue, without any need to amend claim 1. 

T 1038/18

https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t181038eu1.html

The opposition division held in its decision that the requirement of Article 83 EPC was met because, first, the requirements were met by the corresponding independent claim 1 and a dependent claim only represented additional non-essential details of the invention and, second, any potential contradiction with claim 1 would represent a clarity issue, which was not a ground for opposition.

The board, however, cannot follow the opposition division's arguments because the requirement of sufficiency of disclosure under Articles 100(b) and 83 EPC is not confined to the invention defined in independent claims and - as submitted by the appellant - it also concerns the invention defined in dependent claims referring back to them. In addition, the mere fact that the appellant's objection under Article 100(b) or 83 EPC is based on a possible contradiction and that a contradiction may give rise to an objection of lack of clarity under Article 84 EPC which does not constitute a ground for opposition does - contrary to the opposition division's view - per se not justify omitting consideration of the mentioned objection under Articles 100(b) or 83 EPC.

T 2174/16 - Broader dependent claim

 Key points

• Claim 1 as granted specifies particles of at least 20 nm*, dependent claim 3 as granted specifies at least 15 nm; in opposition the patentee combines claims 1 and 3. The questions is whether this is permitted under Art. 123(3) ?
• The feature at issue is actually the ' span value' of the particles, but this is not relevant for the decision.
• The Board: “Since the lower limit of the span value in claim 1 of the main and first auxiliary requests is lower than that in granted independent claim 1, and its dependent claims, namely 15 nm instead of about 20 nm, the scope of protection which would be conferred by claim 1 of the main and first auxiliary requests is broader than the scope of protection conferred by the claims as granted, such that the requirements of Article 123(3) EPC are not satisfied (also see T1702/12; point 4 of the reasons).”
• “The Board points out that establishing the scope of protection is a question of law. Indeed, scope of protection is an issue which is typically decided by a judge in infringement proceedings. Thus the claims are not only to be read with the understanding of the technically skilled person, but also by the lawyer, and their scope has to be established accordingly. The overall purpose of the provisions of Article 123(3) EPC is primarily a legal purpose, namely legal certainty for third parties that they will not be confronted with broader claims after amendments made in opposition. Therefore the principle of legal certainty which is of upmost importance with regard to scope of protection conferred by the patent as granted must be taken into account and the general principle that a claim drafted as dependent claim contains all the features of the independent claim to which it refers must normally apply, as far as possible with a reasonable claim interpretation.”

 T 2174/16 -

https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t162174eu1.html

decision text omitted.

T 0998/17 - It raised to prominence, for the first time

Key points

• This is an opposition appeal.  The Board has to decide on the admissibility of a document filed by the opponent with its Statement of grounds.
• “just 1 month before the opposition oral proceedings [i.e. before the opposition division], the proprietor withdrew all its previous auxiliary requests and filed 12 new auxiliary requests. During the oral proceedings, auxiliary request 12 was made the first auxiliary request and is the current main request. 3.3 This request combines granted claims 7 and 10. In so doing, it raised to prominence, for the first time, the feature [X] as an indispensable feature of the invention.”
• The Board: “there are no provisions in the EPC which oblige the opponent to provide evidence against every possible fallback position defined in dependent claims.” [citing T1830/11 hn.]
• “in the Board's view, just as an opponent cannot be expected to know which claim of a set of granted dependent claims might be used to uphold a patent, so too could the opponent in the present case not have known which of the 12 auxiliary requests on file at the start of the opposition oral proceedings might eventually be used to uphold the patent. This only became clear at the oral proceedings. Under these circumstances, the Board considers that filing E11 at the earliest opportunity in appeal was a timely reaction to the impugned decision. In other words, the Board considers E11 to have been filed in due time in the sense of Article 114(2) EPC.
• As a comment, the Board considers document E11 to have been filed "in due time in the sense of Article 114(2) EPC". Still it would have been a case amendment under Art. 12(4) RPBA 2020 (based on the text of Art.12(4)(s.1) RPBA 2020 and therefore a submission that “may be admitted only at the discretion of the Board” (Art. 12(4)(s.2) RPBA 2020). The question may be raised whether Art. 12(4) RPBA 2020 here confers powers on the Boards that the EPC does not give them. 

T 0998/17 -

https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t170998eu1.html

3. Admission of document E11

3.1 E11 was filed with the grounds of appeal. It is thus late filed and its admittance is subject to the discretion afforded by Article 12(4) RPBA (2007) with Article 114(2) EPC. E11 is said to have been filed as a response to the amended claims of the main request.

3.2 The Board notes (see impugned decision, facts and submissions, points 6 and 9) that just 1 month before the opposition oral proceedings, the proprietor withdrew all its previous auxiliary requests and filed 12 new auxiliary requests. During the oral proceedings, auxiliary request 12 was made the first auxiliary request and is the current main request.

3.3 This request combines granted claims 7 and 10. In so doing, it raised to prominence, for the first time, the feature of the front metal layer and adhesive layers covering only a part of the scratch-off layer as an indispensable feature of the invention.

According to established jurisprudence (see Case Law of the Boards of Appeal, 9th edition, 2019 (CLBA) V.A.4.11.3.c, in particular T1830/11, headnote and reasons, part 1) there are no provisions in the EPC which oblige the opponent to provide evidence against every possible fallback position defined in dependent claims.

In the present case, it is true that the proprietor filed auxiliary requests 1 to 12 in opposition just within the 1 month time limit defined by Article 116 EPC. The circumstances of the present case are therefore different from T1830/11 where a new request combining dependent claims was filed at oral proceedings.

Nevertheless, in the Board's view, just as an opponent cannot be expected to know which claim of a set of granted dependent claims might be used to uphold a patent, so too could the opponent in the present case not have known which of the 12 auxiliary requests on file at the start of the opposition oral proceedings might eventually be used to uphold the patent. This only became clear at the oral proceedings. Under these circumstances, the Board considers that filing E11 at the earliest opportunity in appeal was a timely reaction to the impugned decision. In other words, the Board considers E11 to have been filed in due time in the sense of Article 114(2) EPC.

3.4 Moreover, the Board considers E11 (see for example abstract, column 4, lines 22 to 26 and figure 5a) to be prima facie relevant to claim 1, since it discloses scratch-off labels where a front security element 6 is adhesively attached to the scratch off layer 5 and extends only partly over the scratch off layer.

3.5 For these reasons, the Board decided to exercise its discretion under Article 12(4) RPBA with Article 114(2) EPC by admitting document E11 into the proceedings.

4. Main request, claim 6, inventive step starting from E1 with E

T 1399/17 - Adapting the description

Key points

• In this opposition appeal, “The parties disagreed as to whether the patent specification had been correctly adapted to reflect the added mandatory feature of claim 1. The respondent [patentee] argued that it considered the adaptation of the description appropriate. The term "natural fat" neither excluded modified triglyceride molecules nor was relevant for the patentability of the claims.”
• The Board: “This is not convincing. Article 84 EPC requires that the claims be supported by the description. This also applies to claims which have been amended in opposition (Article 101(3)(a) EPC). A mandatory feature of claim 1 is that the dietary fat be a blend of natural fats. However, the specification of the patent as amended in the oral proceedings does not reflect this. Therefore, it casts doubts on the scope of the claim.”
• “On the basis of this alone, it is manifest that the description of the patent does not comply with the requirement of Article 84 EPC. Consequently, the main request is not allowable.”

T 1399/17 -

epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t171399eu1.html

2. Main request - adaptation of the description

2.1 Claim 1 includes the feature, added from a dependent claim as granted, that the "dietary fat is a blend of natural fats". The parties disagreed as to whether the patent specification had been correctly adapted to reflect the added mandatory feature of claim 1. The respondent argued that it considered the adaptation of the description appropriate. The term "natural fat" neither excluded modified triglyceride molecules nor was relevant for the patentability of the claims.

2.2 This is not convincing. Article 84 EPC requires that the claims be supported by the description. This also applies to claims which have been amended in opposition (Article 101(3)(a) EPC). A mandatory feature of claim 1 is that the dietary fat be a blend of natural fats. However, the specification of the patent as amended in the oral proceedings does not reflect this. Therefore, it casts doubts on the scope of the claim. The following non-exhaustive examples are given:

- According to paragraph [0014], last sentence, it is not a mandatory feature but only a desirable one:"Desirably the balance of fatty acids is achieved using a blend of natural fats...".

- In paragraph [0040], it is still stated that

"[p]referably" the dietary fat composition is a blend of natural fats. The entire paragraph and in particular the second sentence, in which it is discussed that the dietary fat composition "is... a structurally modified triglyceride-based dietary fat composition", does not support claim 1.

- In paragraph [0125], it is stated that interesterified fats "may still be used in the present invention". It would be straightforward for the skilled person that interesterified fats are not natural fats. This is confirmed in paragraph [0191] of the patent in suit ("The terms 'natural fat' and 'natural oil' ... does not contain a significant level of triglyceride molecules which have been artificially structurally modified (e.g., by chemical or enzymatic interesterification)...") and also in D11-N (e.g. page 110, left column, third paragraph).

- The section of the patent in suit entitled "Examples" and beginning before paragraph [0208] suggests that interesterified fats are part of the invention.

2.3 On the basis of this alone, it is manifest that the description of the patent does not comply with the requirement of Article 84 EPC. Consequently, the main request is not allowable.

T 1764/17 - Insufficient number of dependent claims

 Key points

• The Board makes some remarks about dependent claims as granted.
• The Board: “the proprietor's right to amend the patent is limited by Rule 80 EPC to overcoming opposition grounds, and is not an opportunity to fix shortcomings of the granted patent, such as an insufficient number of independent or dependent claims to define all commercially viable embodiments, or to improve fallback positions in future revocation proceedings before a national court.”
• The case is discussed in the forthcoming Case Law 2020 supplement of the O (link)

T 1764/17 - 

https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t171764eu1.html

4. Admissibility of auxiliary requests 20, 20A, 21, 21A, 22, 22A, 22B.

As already indicated by the Board in its communication, only in exceptional cases can the replacement of a granted single independent claim by two or more independent claims be considered to be occasioned by a ground for opposition. An exception might arise if two granted dependent claims were linked in parallel to a single independent claim. Then the filing of two independent claims including each one of the two parallel claim combinations might be possible, see Case Law of the Boards of Appeal, 9th edition 2019 (CLBA), IV.C.5.1.5.b), thus allowing separate fragments of the scope of protection afforded by the patent as granted to be retained. However, this exception does not apply to the addition of an independent claim directed at an aspect of the invention that was not included in the granted set of claims. As set out in CLBA, IV.C.5.1.1 the proprietor's right to amend the patent is limited by Rule 80 EPC to overcoming opposition grounds, and is not an opportunity to fix shortcomings of the granted patent, such as an insufficient number of independent or dependent claims to define all commercially viable embodiments, or to improve fallback positions in future revocation proceedings before a national court.

In the present case, at least one of the two independent claims of all auxiliary requests 20, 20A, 21, 21A, 22, 22A, 22B is directed at subject-matter that incorporates new features extracted from the description, that might moreover be material for the issue of patentability. These include a face seal portion having a face seal that is at least partially elastic, so that it can move with the user's jaw when the user talks. These independent claims are thus not straight combinations of granted claims and the above exception does not apply.

For the above reasons the Board considers that the filing of the two independent claims in these requests is not justified by a ground for opposition, contrary to Rule 80 EPC. The Board thus decided not to admit auxiliary requests 20, 20A, 21, 21A, 22, 22A, 22B.

T 1775/18 - Dependent claims and auxiliary requests

 Key points

• In this examination appeal, the application files an auxiliary request after notification of the summons. In the request, a feature taken from dependent claim 3 as granted is added.
• “the appellant argued that the introduction in an independent claim of a feature taken from a dependent claim was not an amendment of its case which, under Article 13(2) RPBA 2020, required exceptional circumstances justified with cogent reasons. Such an amendment could not come as a surprise, since dependent claims were meant to define fallback positions. Moreover, dependent claim 3 formed part of the decision under appeal, as it had been discussed by the examining division in an obiter dictum.”
• The Board does not agree. “However, while it is true that dependent claims define fallback positions for certain purposes, in EPO proceedings they cannot be equated with auxiliary requests. Article 113(2) EPC requires the EPO to decide on an application in the text submitted to it, or agreed, by the applicant. This means that it is the applicant's responsibility to file an (amended) set of application documents that fully meet the requirements of the EPC, for example in the form of an auxiliary request. ”
• “Hence, if an applicant wishes to put forward as its case a fallback position as defined by a dependent claim, it has to file an amendment that turns that claim into an independent claim. For the sake of procedural efficiency, the RPBA sets limits on when such amendments can still be filed in appeal proceedings.”

T 1775/18

https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t181775eu1.html

decision text omitted.

T 0319/18 - Rejoinder in appeal

 Key points

• This is an opposition appeal.
• “The fifth auxiliary request, which had already been filed in opposition proceedings, was submitted with the rejoinder to the statement of grounds of appeal. Claim 1 of this request had been limited essentially by combining features of granted claims 2, 3 and 4. The only explanation provided in said rejoinder was an indication of the claims of the granted patent from which the features had been derived. However no reasons were provided explaining why the amendments had been made and how they were intended to overcome the objections raised by the appellant.”
• As a matter of terminology, in inter partes appeals we have the Statement of grounds, the written reply of the respondent under Art. 12(1)(c) RPBA 2020, and the further reply of the appellant indicated in Explanatory Note 13(2) to the RPBA 2020 (“The intention behind the two-month minimum waiting time is to give a party the opportunity to react to another party’s written reply with submissions falling under the less strict second level of the convergent approach, i.e. Art. 13(1)”). 
• I personally tend to use the terms ‘appeal reply brief’ of the respondent and the rejoinder (under Explanatory Note 13(2)) of the appellant. Both can be critical to the appeal procedure for parties to maintain their case.
• The Board: “Unless the purpose of the amendments in respect of overcoming the prevailing objections is self-explanatory, in the situation where reasons explaining why the new claims overcome the outstanding objections are filed after the statement of grounds of appeal or the reply, these reasons constitute an amendment to the party's appeal case, which may be admitted into the proceedings only at the discretion of the Board.”.
• “In the present case, the mere fact that the fifth auxiliary request was formally filed during the opposition procedure does not automatically render it part of the appeal case, since its admission had not been examined by the opposition division, due to the fact that the patent was maintained as granted.”
• “It is established jurisprudence of the Boards of Appeal that requests that are not self-explanatory become effective only at the date on which they are substantiated”
• “the Board in agreement with the case law cannot follow the respondent's [patentee's] argument that the amendment is as such admissible as it merely constitutes a combination of granted claims (see e.g. T 1752/09, reasons 3.3 and T 569/08, headnote). Therefore also a mere combination of granted claims, which, as in the present case in the light of the particular objections raised, is not self-explanatory, does not satisfy the requirements of Article 12(2) RPBA 2007.”
• The explanation/substantiation was submitted with a letter filed after notification of the summons.
• “ the new submissions provided [with said letter] constitute an amendment to the respondent's appeal case compared to that set out in the initial pleadings, the admission of which is subject to the discretion of the Board”. There were no exceptional circumstances and the 5th AR is not admitted. 

EPO T 0319/18

https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t180319eu1.html

2. Fifth auxiliary request - admittance

The fifth auxiliary request, which had already been filed in opposition proceedings, was submitted with the rejoinder to the statement of grounds of appeal. Claim 1 of this request had been limited essentially by combining features of granted claims 2, 3 and 4.

The only explanation provided in said rejoinder was an indication of the claims of the granted patent from which the features had been derived. However no reasons were provided explaining why the amendments had been made and how they were intended to overcome the objections raised by the appellant.

An explanation was provided with the letter bearing the date 19 October 2020, received on 19 November 2020, after the Board had indicated in its preliminary opinion the lack of motivation with respect to the auxiliary requests.

T 0978/17 - Combining claims 1, 2 and 3

 Key points

• The opponent filed a new document D85 with its Statement of grounds. The Board decides to admit the document under Art. 12(4) RPBA 2007. The question was whether the document should have been filed earlier.
• The patentee had filed 15 auxiliary requests during the first instance proceedings and then a further auxiliary request 17 during the oral proceedings adding a feature not present in the higher-ranking requests.
• According to the Board, the opponent was not obliged to prepare for the case that the patentee added the feature, even though AR-17 is merely a combination of claims 1, 2 and 3 as granted.
• “jedoch sind die Einsprechenden nicht verpflichtet, innerhalb der Einspruchsfrist alle möglichen Anspruchskombinationen mit ihren Entgegenhaltungen abzudecken. Die Patentschrift hat 13 abhängige Ansprüche, wobei nicht alle auf einen einzigen Anspruch rückbezogen sind. Es ergibt sich somit eine Vielzahl von Anspruchskombinationen, die von den Einsprechenden im Vorfeld nicht zumutbar abgedeckt werden konnten.”
• Therefore, D85 is admtited. The patent is revoked inter alia based on lack of inventive step over D3 in combination with D85.

T 0978/17
https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t170978du1.html

5. Zulassung von D85

5.1 Die Einsprechende 3 hat das Dokument D85 erstmals mit ihrer Beschwerdebegründung eingereicht, sodass sich die Frage stellt, ob dieses gemäß Artikel 12 (4) RPBA 2007 vom Verfahren auszuschließen sei.

5.2 In Reaktion auf die Einspruchsschrift und den Prioritätseinwand hat die Patentinhaberin im Einspruchsverfahren fünfzehn Hilfsanträge eingereicht, von denen keiner die mit dem Hilfsantrag XVII vorgenommene Änderung enthielt. Erst während der mündlichen Verhandlung im Einspruchsverfahren hat die Patentinhaberin in Reaktion auf einen Klarheitseinwand das Merkmal "parallel" zum Anspruch 1 eines weiteren Hilfsantrags hinzugefügt.

T 0411/17 - Dependent claims

Key points

• The OD held a request inadmissible. The Board admits it under Art. 12(4) RPBA 2007.
• “It is apparent from the file that the opposition division exercised its discretion not to admit the request into the proceedings on the grounds that, in view of feature g), claim 1 of the second auxiliary request did not find a correspondence in a dependent claim of the patent as granted. ”
• The Board admits the request.
• “It is also apparent to the board that the subject-matter of claim 1 of the second auxiliary request corresponds to a combination of claims 1, 8 and 9 of the then first auxiliary request. The board therefore considers that there was sufficient time for the opponent to prepare for the subject-matter of the second auxiliary request, the more so since the opponent could have foreseen that auxiliary requests were to follow given the preliminary opinion of the opposition division as set out in the annex to its summons to oral proceedings. The board notes also that, apart from feature g), claim 1 of the second auxiliary request corresponds to a combination of claims 1, 8 and 9 as granted. At no point in time did the opponent raise objections against the subject-matter of such a combination, although this could have been done as early as with the notice of opposition.”

EPO T 0411/17 -   link

4.2 Admission into the appeal proceedings (Article 12(4) RPBA 2007)

4.2.1 The second auxiliary request is identical to the second auxiliary request underlying the decision under appeal. The opposition division did not admit that request into the opposition proceedings on the grounds that it was late-filed (filed during the first-instance oral proceedings) and that claim 1 of the request was not based on the claims as granted.

4.2.2 Article 12(4) RPBA 2007 conveys the board the discretionary power to hold inadmissible facts, evidence or requests which were not admitted in the first-instance proceedings.

4.2.3 The respondent requested to confirm the opposition division's assessment and not to admit the second auxiliary request into the appeal proceedings. The respondent emphasised that the patent proprietor could have foreseen from the annex to the summons of the opposition division that the opposition division would raise an objection under Article 54(3) EPC against the main request in view of D3 and an objection under Article 54(2) EPC against the auxiliary request in view of D9 as set out in the decision under appeal. In the respondent's view, the patent proprietor deliberately chose not to file the second auxiliary request before expiry of the time limit pursuant to Rule 116(2) EPC.

T 1501/15 - Admissibility of documents before the OD

Key points

• The OD did not admit D3 into the proceedings as being late filed and not prima facie relevant.
• The patentee had in response to the opposition filed AR-1 wherein granted claims 11 and 14 were combined, to create novelty over E2 which is an Art.54(3) prior right.
• The opponent filed D3 by the Rule 116 date. 
• The OD considered D3 to be late filed, because it could have already been filed with the Notice of opposition or shortly after the response of the patentee.
• The Board considers the OD's remark that that D3 was not filed earlier, i.e. not closely after the response of the patentee, to be an insufficient ground for the discretionary decision to hold D3 inadmissible. 
• The Board does not explain why.  
• However, the minutes of the oral proceedings before the OD don't show the opponent had expressed itself on the discretionary decision of the OD or on the lack of prima facie relevance.
• The Board, in the original: “Ausweislich der Niederschrift haben die Einsprechenden sich jedoch weder zur Ermessensausübung der Einspruchsabteilung noch zur fehlenden Prima facie-Relevanz von E3 in der mündlichen Verhandlung geäußert.”
• Practice point: object, object, object before the OD and get it in the minutes.
• " Im Übrigen bedarf die Anfechtung von erstinstanzlichen Ermessensentscheidung im Wege der Beschwerde nach der Judikatur der Beschwerdekammern zumindest der Behauptung, dass die erste Instanz ihr Ermessen nach Maßgabe der falschen Kriterien, unter Nichtbeachtung der richtigen Kriterien oder in willkürlicher Weise ausgeübt hat und damit ihr eingeräumtes Ermessen überschritten hat (G 7/93, ABl 1994, 775 u.a.) Derartiges fehlt hier gänzlich. Der auf E3 gestützte Vortrag fehlender erfinderischer Tätigkeit ist weiterhin nahezu eine reine Wiederholung des Vortrags der Einsprechenden in erster Instanz. Die Kammer sieht daher keine Veranlassung, von der Entscheidung der Einspruchsabteilung abzugehen und E3 im Verfahren zu berücksichtigen.
• I think G7/93 indicates that the  Board should only overrule a discretionary decision in these limited cases, but indeed the party at issue should properly assert so in its initial appeal submissions.

EPO T 1501/15 - link

E3 - Zulassung in das Verfahren

28. Die Einspruchsabteilung hat das Dokument E3 nicht zugelassen, da es verspätet vorgelegt worden war und zudem nicht als prima facie relevant angesehen wurde (Punkt 15.3 der Entscheidungsgründe).

29. Die Patentinhaberin hat in Erwiderung auf den Einspruch die Hilfsanträge 1 und 2 überreicht, in denen die Merkmale des erteilten Anspruchs 14 in den Anspruch 11 einbezogen waren. Sie hat damit zumindest versucht, die gegen den Anspruch 11 erhobenen Einwände der unzulässigen Verallgemeinerung und den auf E2 gestützten Einwand mangelnder erfinderischer Tätigkeit auszuräumen.

30. E2 ist gegenüber dem Anspruch 11 der Hilfsanträge Stand der Technik gemäß Artikel 54(3), nicht jedoch 54(2) EPÜ. Für die Einsprechenden bestand durchaus Veranlassung zu einer unmittelbaren Reaktion, da der auf E2 gestützte Einwand mangelnder erfinderischer Tätigkeit gegenstandslos geworden war.

T 1928/17 - All independent claims

Key points

• In this examination appeal, the set of claims that was refused has three independent claims 1, 2 and 3 each for a composition, and each with a  different characterizing feature (i.e. claim 1 has feature X, claim 2 has feature Y, claim 3 has feature Z).
• The ED refused the application, explaining that claims 1 and 2 were not novel. The Board surprisingly sees a substantial procedural violation in the ED not commenting on claim 3.
• The refusal decision was based on the lack of novelty of independent claim 3 wheres the earlier novelty objections of the ED concerned the independent claims 1 and 2 only. Hence, the ED had not complied with the right to be heard of Art. 113 EPC. [see also the comments]
• " Was die Schlussfolgerung "Deshalb sind die Ansprüche 1-29 nicht neu" anbelangt, bleibt diese - zumindest im Hinblick auf die Ansprüche 3 bis 29 - völlig unbegründet, weil keines der technischen Merkmale, die die Ansprüche 3 bis 29 kennzeichnen, berücksichtigt word."
• “Durch die ausschließliche Bezugnahme auf die technischen Merkmale X und Y, die die Ansprüche 1 und 2 charakterisieren, erweckt daher die Prüfungsabteilung in der Mitteilung den Eindruck, dass lediglich die Neuheit des beanspruchten Gegenstandes bestritten wird, der auf einer durch die Merkmale X und Y charakterisierten Tanninfraktion beruht.”
• As far as I know, one claim being not novel is enough to make the entire set of claims unallowable. But this Board apparently sees it differently.
• This decision is also interesting for the in my experience quite common case that the search report only deals in substance with claim 1 and then merely asserts that the features of the other claims do not provide for inventive step. 

EPO  T 1928/17 

Entscheidungsgründe

1. Verletzung des rechtlichen Gehörs und unzureichende Begründung

1.1 Gemäß Artikel 113(1) EPÜ dürfen Entscheidungen nur auf Gründe gestützt werden, zu denen die Beteiligten sich äußern konnten. Dies bedeutet insbesondere, dass ein Beteiligter in der Entscheidungsbegründung nicht durch bisher unbekannte Gründe überrascht werden darf.

1.2 Es ist zu entscheiden, ob der Beschwerdeführerin zuvor die Gelegenheit gegeben wurde, sich mit den Gründen, auf die sich die Entscheidung stützt, auseinander zu setzen. Dies setzt voraus, dass der Beschwerdeführerin die Gründe vorab mitgeteilt worden waren.

1.3 In den unabhängigen Ansprüchen des Anspruchssatzes, welcher der Mitteilung nach Artikel 94(3) und der angefochtenen Entscheidung zu Grunde liegt, finden sich drei kennzeichnende Merkmale, die die Tanninfraktion näher charakterisieren:

- Merkmal X: ein bestimmtes Zahlenmittel des Molekulargewichts von mindestens 1000g/mol

- Merkmal Y: ein bestimmtes Gewichtsmittel des Molekulargewichts von mindestens 1000g/mol

- Merkmal Z: das Vorhandensein von hydrolysierbarem Gallotannin in der Tanninfraktion.

1.4 Ansprüche 1, 2 und 3 sind jeweils durch die Merkmale X, Y und Z charakterisiert. Anspruch 18 umfasst drei alternative Ausführungsformen, die jeweils durch eines der Merkmale X, Y oder Z gekennzeichnet sind.

T 2242/17 - Dependent claim 12 in particular

Key points

• The Board does not admit an auxiliary request filed during oral proceedings in this opposition appeal.
• “The Board sees no reason, for example a change in the case, why such a request was not filed in reaction to the communication under Article 15(1) RPBA shortly after its receipt  [five months before the oral proceedings], which would have allowed the respondent [opponent] and the board to prepare for this new request. It also cannot be argued that such a request was to be expected, since the appellant [patentee] did not put the related arguments forward until the oral proceedings. In addition, the patent as granted contains several dependent claims and there was no indication that there was an intention to limit the claims on file using the features of claim 12 as granted in particular.”
• Claim 12 related to the particle size
• “This request would require a new discussion regarding the issue of particle size vs particle size distribution [], which neither the board nor the respondent could really have expected. In view of the very late submission and the unresolved questions that would have had to be discussed for the first time, the board decided not to admit the request into the proceedings (Article 13 (1),(3) RPBA 2007).”
• Hence, this decision appears to suggest that the fact that granted claim 12 specified a particle size feature, does not mean that the opponent should have expected a discussion about that feature at the oral proceedings. At least, the Board's decision to not admit the requests appears to be based not solely on the feature taken from the description. 

EPO T 2242/17 - link

Fifth auxiliary request

3. Article 13(1),(3) RPBA

This request was filed during oral proceedings before the board after the previous requests had been discussed and the board had given its opinion on said requests with respect to novelty and inventive step. It was thus filed at the latest possible moment.

In the communication under Article 15(1) RPBA, which was issued approximately five months before the oral proceedings, the board had already given its preliminary opinion on novelty and inventive step, thereby granting the appellant's request to also deal with said grounds of opposition. At that point in time, the appellant was aware that the requests then on file were most likely to be held not allowable.

The appellant based its main argument with respect to the problem to be solved on the weight percentage of the calcium hydroxide for the first time during oral proceedings. Only after it was informed that said arguments were not convincing for the board did it file the fifth auxiliary request.

This request is a combination of claims 1 and 12 as granted in combination with a feature ("lowering the temperature") originating from the description. The Board sees no reason, for example a change in the case, why such a request was not filed in reaction to the communication under Article 15(1) RPBA shortly after its receipt, which would have allowed the respondent and the board to prepare for this new request. It also cannot be argued that such a request was to be expected, since the appellant did not put the related arguments forward until the oral proceedings. In addition, the patent as granted contains several dependent claims and there was no indication that there was an intention to limit the claims on file using the features of claim 12 as granted in particular.

This request would require a new discussion regarding the issue of particle size vs particle size distribution (see point 1.5 above), which neither the board nor the respondent could really have expected.

In view of the very late submission and the unresolved questions that would have had to be discussed for the first time, the board decided not to admit the request into the proceedings (Article 13 (1),(3) RPBA 2007).

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is dismissed.

T 0394/15 - Combining claims as granted

Key points

• If patentee combines  two claims as granted one month before oral proceedings before the OD, do new documents filed by opponent with its statement of grounds in response to the claim amendment fall under the 'should have been filed' rule of Art.12(4) RPBA 2007 / Art.12(6)(s.2)(i) RPBA 2020?
• The Board: “The filing of D12 to D19 [with the Statement of grounds] to support objections against this request is considered to be a justified and timely reaction to the proprietor's filing of the request at that late stage of the first instance proceedings, even if claim 1 is a combination of granted claims 1 and 7, as the proprietor argued.”

EPO T 0394/15 -  link


3. Admission of documents D12 to D19

Since 1 January 2020 the revised RPBA ("RPBA 2020") apply (OJ 2019, A63). By virtue of the transitional provisions of Article 25(2) RPBA 2020, for the present case Article 12(4) RPBA 2007 applies.

D12 to D19 were submitted by the opponent in relation to the case under appeal at the earliest possible stage of the appeal proceedings, i.e. with the statement of grounds, in compliance with Article 12(3) RPBA 2020. Under Article 12(4) RPBA 2007 these documents are to be taken into account, although the Board retains the power to hold them inadmissible if they could have been presented in the first instance proceedings.

The Board notes that the request allowed by the Opposition Division was filed for the first time one month before the oral proceedings at first instance. The filing of D12 to D19 to support objections against this request is considered to be a justified and timely reaction to the proprietor's filing of the request at that late stage of the first instance proceedings, even if claim 1 is a combination of granted claims 1 and 7, as the proprietor argued . Under these circumstances the Board, in exercising its discretion under Article 12(4) RPBA 2007, sees no need to consider the prima facie relevance of D12 to D19 and admits these documents into the appeal proceedings.

T 1624/16 - No last chance doctrine

Key points

• The patentee files auxiliary requests during the oral proceedings before the Board, after the Board had announced a negative conclusion on the claims as granted.
• The Board: “As regards the [patentee's] argument that late filing of the auxiliary requests was justified as a "last chance" to save its patent, the board notes that submissions of the parties are subject to Articles 12 and 13 RPBA and admissibility of late requests is always a matter of the board's discretion (see e.g. T 446/00, point 3.3 of the Reasons). There is no established "last chance" doctrine or any absolute right of a patentee to such a "last chance".”
• The Board: “the [patentee] has failed to present any arguments why, in its view, any of these requests should be prima facie allowable, although e.g. claims 2 and 4 as granted [now incorporated in claim 1] were already objected to for lack of inventive step in the grounds of appeal.”

T 1624/16 -  link

3. First to sixth auxiliary requests - admissibility

3.1 The first to sixth auxiliary requests were filed during the oral proceedings, after the board had given its negative opinion with regard to novelty of the subject-matter of claim 1 as granted. As compared to the previous first to sixth auxiliary requests filed with the respondent's letter dated 27 June 2019, the term "prevention" in claim 1 has been replaced in all requests by the term "inhibition".

3.2 Under Article 13(1) RPBA, the boards have discretion to admit and consider any amendment to a party's case after it has filed its grounds of appeal or reply. The discretion shall be exercised in view of inter alia the complexity of the new subject matter submitted, the current state of the proceedings and the need for procedural economy.

In this context, according to well-established case law of the Boards of Appeal, amended claims filed only shortly before or during the oral proceedings must in general be prima facie allowable in order to be admitted in the sense that it is immediately apparent to the board that they overcome all outstanding issues without raising new ones (see Case Law of the Boards of Appeal (CL), 8th edition, IV.E.4.1.3, 4.2.2).

In any case, it should be considered whether there is a proper justification for their late filing.

T 0124/16 - Not admitting attack

Key points

• This decision was given publication code [C], so I'm discussing it here.
• The opponent submitted that claim 1 of an auxiliary request was obvious over E1 and E12 for the first time during the oral proceedings before the Board. The Board does not admit this new line of attack, noting also that operative claim 1 is based on some of the dependent claims as granted.
• The opponent had only attacked the inventive step based on E14 during the appeal procedure. However, E14 was a document that had not been admitted by the OD 'in the framework of novelty'. In appeal, the opponent uses E14 for inventive step. The Board concludes that it has a discretion to admit E14 under Article 12(4) RPBA. The Board assesses that E14 is not prima facie highly relevant and does not admit E14.
• As a comment, under Art.12(6) RPBA 2020, "the Board shall not admit [] evidence which [was] not admitted in the proceedings leading to the decision under appeal, unless the decision not to admit them suffered from an error in the use of discretion or unless the circumstances of the appeal case justify their admittance." I wonder if the change of strategy of the opponent party (movant) itself can be considered a "circumstance of the appeal" justifying the admittance of E14. But under current Art.12(4) RPBA 2007, the Board has the discretion. 

EPO T 0124/16 -  link

Hilfsantrag B3

5. Nicht-Zulassung von E14 in das Verfahren

5.1 E14 ist unbestritten ein verspätet vorgebrachtes Beweismittel im Sinne von Artikel 114 (2) EPÜ. Im Rahmen der Neuheitsdiskussion hat die Einspruchs­abteilung E14 nicht ins Verfahren zugelassen.

5.2 Bei der Diskussion der erfinderischen Tätigkeit im Verfahren vor der Einspruchsabteilung fand E14 keine Erwähnung. Die Beschwerdeführerin hat den auf E14 gründenden Einwand mangelnder erfinderischer Tätigkeit erstmals im Beschwerdeverfahren vorgebracht, obwohl ein auf entsprechende Weise eingeschränkter Anspruch 1 von der Beschwerdegegnerin bereits im Einspruchs­verfahren vorgelegt worden war (vgl. Hilfsantrag IV vom 4. September 2015, jedoch noch umfassend die Alternative mit Thermostatventil und mit anderer Abgrenzung zwischen allgemeinem und kennzeichnendem Teil). Dieser neue, von E14 ausgehende Einwand mangelnder erfinderischer Tätigkeit hätte daher bereits im Verfahren vor der Einspruchsabteilung vorgebracht werden können.

T 0733/14 - Cancelling claims, remittal

Key points

• In this opposition appeal, the patentee gives up the product claims and files an AR with only the independent claim for the process. The request is admitted and the case is remitted.
• " The opposition division has not yet ruled on the process claims, since the discussion during the oral proceedings before the opposition division focused only on the product claims. It is not the duty of the Boards of Appeal to consider and decide upon questions raised for the first time during the appeal proceedings. "
• The notice of opposition was filed in 2012, the patent in 2002. 

EPO T 0733/14 - link

Reasons for the Decision

1. Auxiliary request 4 - Admission into the proceedings

This request corresponds to auxiliary request 5 filed with letter dated 14 December 2017, which has been objected by respondent 02 under Article 13(3) RPBA. Present auxiliary request is objected under the same Article 13(3) RPBA.

Claim 1 of auxiliary request 4 is identical to independent claim 23 of the main request filed with the statement of grounds of appeal, and corresponds thus to an independent claim present in a request filed at the earliest stage of the appeal proceedings. It therefore cannot be considered as late-filed, as argued by respondent 02. Moreover, its subject-matter cannot constitute a surprise, since it is based on independent claim 25 as granted with the subject-matter of its dependent claim 31 as granted incorporated therein.

Hence, the Board does not see any reason not to accept this request into the proceedings under Article 13(3) RPBA.

2. Auxiliary request 4 - Remittal to the opposition division

The opposition division has not yet ruled on the process claims, since the discussion during the oral proceedings before the opposition division focused only on the product claims. It is not the duty of the Boards of Appeal to consider and decide upon questions raised for the first time during the appeal proceedings. Instead, the main purpose of appeal proceedings is to give the losing party the opportunity to challenge the decision of the opposition division (cf. G 9/91, loc. cit., point 18 of the Reasons). Taking into account that the the decision of the opposition division does not deal with the process claims, the Board considers it appropriate to exercise its power conferred on it by Article 111(1) EPC to remit the case to the opposition division for further prosecution on the basis of the claims according to the auxiliary request 4. This remittal has not been objected by any party to the appeal proceedings.

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The decision under appeal is set aside.

2. The case is remitted to the opposition division for further prosecution.

T 1688/12 - Broadening effect of dependent claims

Key points

• In this opposition appeal, the opponent based an Article 123(2) attack on the argument that by deleting dependent claim 9 and the corresponding paragraph of the description, a more narrow meaning was given to the subject-matter of the independent claims. In particular, claim 9 specified a feature in a rather broad way, thereby making claim 1 broader. By deleting claim 9, claim 1 hence was narrowed. 
• The Board rejects the argument, on the ground that the mere circumstance that a dependent claim encompasses a large number of possible but further specified embodiments, does not mean that all the claims from which depends, are to be interpreted in such a way as to be consistent with all these unspecified embodiments. 

EPO T 1688/12 - link



Sachverhalt und Anträge

- Bezugnehmend auf den von der Einspruchsabteilung als gewährbar erachteten Antrag machte die Einsprechende geltend, dass die Streichung des ursprünglichen Absatzes [0021] (siehe EP 2 099 048 A1) sowie des ursprünglichen Anspruchs 9 gegen Artikel 123 (2) EPÜ verstoße. Aufgrund des Bezugs des ursprünglichen Anspruchs 9 auf den Anspruch 7 dürfe der ursprünglicher Anspruch 7 nur so ausgelegt werden, dass er nicht im Widerspruch zum Anspruch 9 steht. Dem Absatz [0021] sei entnehmbar, was mit dem Merkmal des Anspruchs 9 gemeint sei, wonach "der Kontaktestecker integraler Bestandteil einer elektrischen Steckverbindungen zwischen benachbarten Modulen ist". Die Kontaktestecker, die nach Anspruch 7 an beiden Seiten des Gehäuses des Relaismoduls angeordnet sind, seien nämlich integraler Bestandteil einer Backplane-Verbindung zwischen benachbarten Modulen. Das Merkmal "Gehäuse des Relaismoduls" von Anspruch 7 könne deshalb auch so ausgelegt werden, dass es auch das Gehäuse der Backplane-Verbindung umfasst. Mit der Streichung des Absatzes [0021] sowie des ursprünglichen Anspruchs 9 sei versucht worden, diese breitere Auslegung auszuschließen und darauf einzugrenzen, dass die Kontaktestecker an beiden Seiten des Gehäuses des Relaismoduls selbst angeordnet sind. Diese engere Auslegung sei ursprünglich nicht offenbart worden.

Entscheidungsgründe

4. Hauptantrag der Einsprechenden

4.1 Einwand nach Artikel 123 (2) EPÜ

4.1.1 Der Einwand unter Artikel 123 (2) EPÜ gegen den von der Einspruchsabteilung als gewährbar erachteten Anspruch 1 stützt sich auf das Argument, dass der ursprüngliche Anspruch 9 nur so auszulegen ist, dass die Kontaktestecker integraler Bestandteil einer Backplane-Verbindung zwischen benachbarten Modulen ist, sowie auf die Prämisse, dass der ursprünglicher Anspruch 7 nur so ausgelegt werden darf, dass er nicht in Widerspruch dazu steht. Absatz [0021] des Streitpatents, wird als Grundlage für diese Auslegung genannt. Dieser Absatz lautet wie folgt:

"Bei bekannten Modulreihen besteht häufig bereits eine mechanische und elektrische Verbindung zwischen den einzelnen Modulen durch die typische Realisierung eines so genannten "backplane" mittels Stecker/Buchse zwischen den einzelnen Modulen. Deshalb ist es vorteilhaft, wenn der Kontaktestecker integraler Bestandteil einer solchen elektrischen Steckverbindungen zwischen benachbarten Modulen ist."