T 1220/22 - The uniform concept of disclosure

Key points

• The question is whether a certain feature is a distinguishing feature of the claim over D4. D4 is a patent application cited as pre-published prior art. 
•  The appellant argued that the subject-matter of claim 1 differed from D4 in the addition/use of an ABX3 mineral having perovskite structure. This constituted a "double feature", i.e. firstly the use of an inorganic additive/mineral - which was merely an optional component, d), in claim 1 of D4 - and secondly the mineral having perovskite structure. It was clear from the description and claims 1 and 8 that these additives under d) were merely optional components in D4. Hence, choosing the presence of such additives in the compositions of claim 1 of D4 constituted a first selection. A second selection, from the list of inorganic additives under d) in claim 8 was necessary in order to arrive at the presence of titanates (in the granules). This assessment was also in line with the reasoning of decision T 1137/21. Similarly, no disclosure of titanates as inorganic additives under d) was directly and unambiguously derivable from the description of D4."
• "The board does not agree. Claim 1 of D4 clearly points to a preferred range  ..."
• "a person skilled in the art will arrive at the specific choice of titanates after performing a single selection from the list of additives under d) as called for in claim 8."
• "This conclusion can be confirmed by the following hypothetical consideration: if an amendment to claim 1 of D4 had to be considered under Article 123(2) EPC, a limitation of this claim to such embodiments would not create added subject-matter; rather, it would be directly and unambiguously derivable from the teaching of D4."
• "The board agrees with the [proprietor ?]  that a uniform concept of disclosure should be applied for the assessment of disclosure under Article 123(2) EPC and of establishing the distinguishing feature over the prior art, and in view of the above the board's findings are fully in line with this uniform concept. The case underlying T 1137/21, as referred to by the appellant, relates to a different scenario involving numerous selections from different dependent claims as originally filed, including less preferred choices. The scenario underlying T 1137/21 is thus not comparable to the case at hand.

  Consequently, the distinguishing feature of claim 1 is not the use of titanates but the use of a specific titanate, namely of one having perovskite crystal structure and the general formula ABX3."

EPO 

The link to the decision and an extract of it can be found after the jump.

T 1487/16 - Inherent features and disclosure

Key points

• In this opposition appeal, one of the issues is whether "Example II" in (possible) prior right document D9 validly claims priority of D9a. In D9 (WO 2004/065443), there is a table stating various properties of the chemical product prepared in that example, including a BET value of 116, a Sears number of 22 and a ratio of Sears / BET of 0.190. The identical values for the BET value and the Sears number are given in D9a. However, D9 is completely silent about the ratio of Sears / BET. Of course, it can be simply calculated by the numbers that are given in D9a, but no such calculation is mentioned in D9a. D9 teaches that the ratio is advantageous. Claim 1 of the opposed patent also specifies the Sears number to BET ratio, but that should not matter (I suppose?)
• The Board considers the example in D9 to lack priority.
• “Somit sind im vorliegenden Fall die in den Entscheidungen G 2/98 und G 1/03 dargelegten Grundsätze anzuwenden. Im vorliegenden Fall hat die Beschwerdegegnerin jedoch nicht bestritten, dass ein fiktives Hinzufügen des Verhältnisses Searszahl V2 zu BET-Oberfläche zur D9a nach Artikel 123(2) EPÜ nicht zulässig wäre. Dieser Schlussfolgerung ist zuzustimmen.” 
• “Aus den obengenannten Gründen kann die D9 nicht die Priorität der D9a beanspruchen, da weder [...]  noch die konkreten Beispiele KSIb und KSII auf Seite 28 dieselbe Erfindung beschreiben. Damit gehört die D9 nicht zum Stand der Technik nach Artikel 54(3) EPÜ.”
• As a comment 1) this decision illustrates that a document does not disclose inherent features, and 2) I would say that the (unchanged) individual Sears and BET numbers have priority in D9 and that this inherently is novelty-destroying for the claim. However, this is not the view of the Board.

EPO T 1487/16 -  link

Entscheidungsgründe

1. Priorität

1.1 Sowohl das Streitpatent als auch die Entgegenhaltung D9 haben als Anmeldedatum den 8. Januar 2004 und beanspruchen jeweils eine erste Priorität, D0 beziehungsweise D9a, vom 22. Januar 2003, sowie eine zweite Priorität vom 13. Dezember 2003. Es ist nicht strittig, dass sowohl das Streitpatent als auch die D9 Anspruch auf die jeweils zweite Priorität haben.

T 1943/15 - Drawings as prior art; open-ended ranges

Key points

• The Board, on drawings as prior art: “Features can therefore be taken from the drawings of a patent publication if their structure and function are clearly, unmistakably and fully derivable from the drawings.”
• The Board agrees with “the conclusion of T 204/83 that dimensions obtained solely by measurements carried out on a diagrammatic representation do not constitute part of the disclosure also applies to patent drawings that accurately portray an invention but do not qualify as construction drawings.”
• The Board, on sufficiency of disclosure: “According to established case law, an open-ended range in a claim does not necessarily result in a lack of sufficiency of disclosure due to the absence of a second boundary to the range. Where it is clear for a skilled person that an open-ended range is limited in practice, depending on the surrounding circumstances, such that the claimed values should be only as high as can be attained above the lower limit, then such open-ended ranges are normally not objected”

EPO T 1943/15 -  link

VII. The appellant [opponent] essentially argued as follows:
x)

Novelty

i) Dimensions from drawings

[Opponent's arguments]

According to decisions T 204/83, T 1488/10 and T 1664/06 there was no general rule for deriving features from drawings, since it was not possible to treat the drawings of each document in the same way. There was no general ban on measuring elements from drawings. In particular, it should be established whether the skilled person would derive any technical teaching from the drawing of a document involving the features in question. In fact, in each of the documents relied upon in opposition, the threads commonly played a relevant role.

When taking account of the relevance of elements shown in a drawing, the quality of the drawing and the background knowledge of the skilled person, it could be appropriate to measure the dimensions of the elements in order to determine the ratio of two dimensions. In that case, the measurements would only be taken to establish whether two dimensions were in proportion to each other. Sometimes, it sufficed for the skilled person to have a perception of a ratio from a drawing without requiring accurate measurements. This was confirmed by decisions T 748/91, T 422/95 and T 1200/05, according to which clearly essential elements may be derived even from schematic drawings.

Reasons for the Decision

2. Sufficiency of disclosure

2.5 According to established case law, an open-ended range in a claim does not necessarily result in a lack of sufficiency of disclosure due to the absence of a second boundary to the range. Where it is clear for a skilled person that an open-ended range is limited in practice, depending on the surrounding circumstances, such that the claimed values should be only as high as can be attained above the lower limit, then such open-ended ranges are normally not objected to (cf. T 487/89, Reasons 3.5; T 129/88 OJ 1993, 598, Reasons 2.2.4; T 1018/05, Reasons 2.3).

[...]

T 0116/14 - Purpose feature of device claim

Key points

• In this opposition appeal, the Board comments on the interpretation of the feature of claim 1 that it is a light source "for producing weight light", in view of the question whether D1 discloses this feature.
• The Board recalls that a purpose feature of a device claim requires that the device must actually be suitable for the recited purpose. This must follow from the features recited in the claim. The Board also notes that in this respect, features that are not recited in the claim are not relevant, even if they are not excluded by the open claim language, because otherwise, the claim would be unclear. 
•  For a prior art device to disclose the feature, it is required that the features actually disclosed already make the device suitable for the recited purpose, according to the Board.  
• Hence, a lack of novelty can not be based (as the OD did) on the argument that D1 does not exclude the presence of additional LED in the device which would make the device suitable for producing white light. Such an approach goes against the rules the above-mentioned rules for claim interpretation, according to the Board. 

Claim 1:

"1. Lichtquelle
(A)|zur Erzeugung von weißem Licht, |
|um­fas­send | ...

4.2.6 Es ist ständige Rechsprechung, dass eine Zweckangabe in einem Vorrichtungsanspruch - welcher beispielsweise mit den Worten "Vorrichtung für ..." oder "Gerät zur ..." beginnt - dahingehend auszulegen ist, dass die bean­spruch­te Vorrichtung in der Tat für den angege­benen Zweck geeignet sein muss (siehe T 287/86, Punkt 2.1 der Gründe; Rechsprechung der Beschwerdekammern des EPA, 8. Auf­lage 2016, Abschnitt I.C.8.1.5).

Die beanspruchten Merkmale der Vorrichtung müssen also in ihrem Zusammenwirken­ bereits die Eignung für den an­gege­benen Zweck ergeben. Es darf dabei nicht auf nicht-beanspruchte Merkmale ankommen, auch wenn diese durch eine offene Anspruchsformulierung, z. B. unter Verwen­dung von Ausdrücken wie "umfassend" und "ent­haltend", nicht ausgeschlossen sind. Ansonsten würde der An­spruch einen Klarheitsmangel aufweisen.

Für die Prüfung, ob eine Entgegenhaltung ein mit Hilfe einer Zweckangabe formuliertes Merkmal ("Zweckmerkmal") offenbart, ergibt sich daraus, dass die Entgegenhaltung das Zweckmerkmal nur dann offenbart, wenn die Attribute der in der Entgegenhaltung beschriebenen Vorrichtung, welche mit den anderen (neben dem Zweckmerkmal) bean­spruchten Merkmalen identifizierbar sind, in ihrem Zusammenwirken­ bereits die Eignung für den angege­benen Zweck ergeben.

Im vorliegenden Fall entschied die Einspruchsabteilung, dass Dokument D1 die beanspruchte Lichtquelle zur Er­zeu­gung von weißem Licht offenbare, da es durch die An­spruchsformulierung nicht ausgeschlossen sei, dass die Lichtquelle weitere LEDs enthalte (siehe Punkte 1.3.1.1 und 1.3.1.3 der Gründe).

Dies widerspricht nach Ansicht der Kammer jedoch der oben angeführten Auslegung der Zweckangabe in einem Vor­richtungsanspruch und der entsprechenden Neuheits­prü­fung. Die oben zitierten, mit den Merkmalen (B), (C), (E) und (F) identifizierbaren Attribute der aus Dokument D1 bekannten Lichtquelle sind nämlich allein genommen nicht bereits zur Erzeugung von weißem Licht geeignet. Dazu sind - wie oben unter Punkt 4.2.1 be­schrie­ben - zusätz­lich sowohl die Umwandlungsmittel 10 als auch die roten LEDs 7, 7' ... notwendig.

Folglich ist das Merkmal (A), dass die Lichtquelle zur Erzeugung von weißem Licht ist, im Dokument D1 nicht offenbart.

4.2.7 Zusammenfassend wird festgestellt, dass sich der Gegen­stand von Anspruch 1 des Hauptantrags von der aus D1 bekannten Vorrichtung dadurch unterscheidet, dass die Lichtquelle

(A)|zur Erzeugung von weißem Licht ist, 

T 1456/14 - Examining what is disclosed

Key points

• The Board decides that a feature is implicitly disclosed in the prior art (a ratio between circumferences of openings in the prior art device).
• The Board in informal translation: "The presence of an implicit (or even explicit) device feature in a known device is not a question of the likelihood of attracting the attention of the skilled person to this feature or not, but whether the citation purely objectively realizes the feature. The criterium of "direct and unambiguous disclosure" does not presuppose that the person skilled in the art, even without the knowledge of the patent, must recognize the feature, but that the examination of the disclosure is carried out with the eyes and the understanding of the skilled person, but by an organ of the EPO and deliberately targeted, in full knowledge of the characteristic to be identified." 

T 1456/14 - link

3.3 Die Umfangslängen der gemäß den Figuren 4 und 5 rechteckigen Öffnungen sind nicht bekannt, so dass die Gesamtlänge der beiden Dichtungslinien nicht explizit in D14 offenbart wird. Anspruch 1 ist auf ein Verhältnis zwischen der Gesamtlänge und der Fläche gerichtet. Die fehlende Offenbarung der Gesamtlänge in D14 ist für die Frage der Neuheit solange unerheblich, wie gezeigt werden kann, dass das fragliche Verhältnis in D14 vorhanden ist, und zwar zweifellos. Der Beweis, dass das so ist, kann auch durch den Nachweis erfolgen, dass bereits ein kleinerer, und von der Vorrichtung in D14 unvermeidlich übertroffener Zahlenwert das beanspruchte Verhältnis erfüllt, so dass auch die Vorrichtung in D14 unvermeidlich dieses Verhältnis aufweisen muss.

Denn für die Beurteilung der Neuheit ist es im vorliegenden Fall grundsätzlich unerheblich, ob die allgemeinen Zusammenhänge zwischen Umfang und Fläche des Quadrats oder des Rechtecks für den Fachmann geläufig sind oder nicht. Es ist auch unerheblich, ob der Fachmann das fragliche Verhältnis aus den Zeichnungen des D14 von selbst, ohne eine gezielte Suche erkennen würde. Das Vorhandensein eines impliziten (oder auch expliziten) Vorrichtungsmerkmals in einer bekannten Vorrichtung ist keine Frage der Wahrscheinlichkeit, ob die Aufmerksamkeit des Fachmanns genau auf dieses Merkmal gelenkt wurde oder nicht, sondern ob die Entgegenhaltung das Merkmal rein objektiv verwirklicht. Das Kriterium der "unmittelbaren und eindeutigen Offenbarung" setzt nicht voraus, dass der Fachmann auch ohne Kenntnis des Patents das Merkmal erkennen muss, sondern dass die Prüfung der Offenbarung zwar mit den Augen und dem Verständnis des Fachmanns, aber von einem Organ des EPA und bewusst gezielt, in voller Kenntnis des zu identifizierenden Merkmals durchgeführt wird.

Im Gegensatz zur Sichtweise der Beschwerdegegnerin stellt eine solche Betrachtung keine unzulässige Berücksichtigung von Äquivalenten dar, da hierdurch die in D14 enthaltene Information nicht verändert wird. Wenn die abgeschätzte kleinere Gesamtlänge das beanspruchte Verhältnis erfüllt, folgt aus Gründen der Logik, dass die wirkliche Gesamtlänge aller Dichtungslinien in D14 erst recht das Verhältnis erfüllen muss. Diese Gesamtlänge würde dann herangezogen, um fehlende Neuheit zu belegen.

T 1658/12 - Novelty based on omitting a step

Key points

• In this case, novelty was based on omitting a step arguably used in D2, namely by essentially specifying in the claim that the presentation of a user-identifier to the reader leads directly to the dispensing of a user-appropriate item, without any further intervention by the user. The Board holds the fact that in some claims of D2, no such further intervention by the user is mentioned, not prejudicial to novelty, essentially because in all the examples of D2 a further user intervention is used.
• The Board acknowledges inventive step for claim 1 below, wherein essentially "user-appropriate" item, e.g. a promotional item, is dispensed based on the costumer identity read from e.g. a personal card, and on "pre-determined criteria", without further input from the customer. The Board considers that " user-appropriate item" means an item that " the operator wants to dispense to the user" .

EPO Headnote
In determining what is made available to the public within the meaning of Article 54(2) EPC by a prior art patent document, it must be borne in mind that it is the description which chiefly serves to disclose the invention in a manner that it may be carried out, whereas the chief function of the claims is to define the subject-matter for which protection is sought. Where a combination of features is found only in the claims (or only in the claims and a "Summary of the Invention" which merely recites the features of the claims), it must be very carefully considered whether this combination truly corresponds to the technical teaching of the document as it would be understood by a skilled person, or whether it is merely an artefact of the claim drafting process aimed at obtaining maximal scope of protection [...].


EPO T 1658/12 - link

Claim 1

"A system to dispense at least one user-appropriate item on-site, said system comprising:
a. a reader (300) capable of reading user-specific information  from a user-identifier associated with a user;
b. coded instructions to dispense at least one user-appropriate item based on predetermined criteria and said user-specific information ;
c. at least one storage means  capable of storing a plurality of items;
d. a dispensing means coupled with respective at least one storage means ; and
e. a processor coupled to said dispensing means () and to said reader, said processor  capable of executing said instructions to actuate the dispensing means  to dispense at least one user-appropriate item based on said user-specific information and said predetermined criteria, the system being configured such that once the processor accepts the user-specific information, it executes an instruction to actuate said dispensing means ."

Reasons for the Decision

3. Differences over document D2

3.1 Document D2 was taken as the closest prior art in the the contested decision.

The analysis of the difference over document D2 in the contested decision is based on features which are no longer present in claim 1, and therefore does not need to be discussed here.

T 1118/12 - Patient group and inherent disclosure

Key points

• "It is undisputed that the compound and the treated disorder disclosed in document D4 fall under the definitions in present claim 1, and that the patients disclosed in document D4 are immune-compromised. The question is whether they also have nasal carriage of S. aureus." "It was known from document D11 that hemodialysis patients showed a mean nasal carriage rate of 51.5% (range from 30.1% to 84.4%)." 
• "In the board's judgement, the skilled person would not have considered that the nasal carriage rates disclosed in document D11 would necessarily also apply to the later study disclosed in document D4. This is so, firstly, because document D11 also discloses that the range of carriage rates reported is large, that older studies tended to find higher carriage rates and that changes in S. aureus nasal carriage may have occurred over the years ([]). Secondly, because the skilled person would have also known that it could not be excluded that the patients of document D4 were treated topically to eliminate nasal carriage ()."
• The Board finds the claim novel over D4.
• The Board recalls that G 2/88 held that "under Article 54(2) EPC the question to be decided is what has been "made available" to the public: the question is not what may have been "inherent" in what was made available (by a prior written description, or in what has previously been used (prior use), for example)" (note that the claim is a second medical use claim).
  

EPO T 1118/12 - link

Claim 1 of auxiliary request 1A reads:
"1. A vaccine comprising a glycoconjugate of a Type 5 polysaccharide antigen of S. aureus and an immunocarrier, and a glycoconjugate of a Type 8 polysaccharide antigen of S. aureus and an immunocarrier, for use in protecting an immune-compromised individual from staphylococcal bacterial infection, wherein said immune-compromised individual has nasal carriage of S. aureus."

Reasons for the Decision

Introduction

1. The present invention relates to the use of staphylococcal glycoconjugate vaccines in preventing Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) infection in immune-compromised individuals who have nasal carriage of S. aureus. S. aureus causes a wide spectrum of human diseases, the most important of which is bacteremia, i.e. an invasion of the bloodstream by S. aureus. Before the priority date of the application it was considered that nasal carriage of S. aureus played a key role in the epidemiology and pathogenesis of infection (see document D11, a review article published in the year 1997, page 505, left hand column, first paragraph). Indeed, document D11 also discloses that the nasal carriage-positive patient group has a 6.3-fold higher risk of bacteremia (see page 512, left hand column, second paragraph). According to document D11 (see page 505, right hand column, first paragraph), "Approximately 20% of individuals almost always carry one type of [S. aureus] strain" (so-called "persistent carriers"). Roughly 60% of the population harbors S. aureus intermittently while 20% of the population never carries S. aureus (so-called "non-carriers")".

Auxiliary request 1A (sole request)

Novelty (Article 54 EPC)

2. Claim 1 of auxiliary request 1A is directed to a vaccine comprising glycoconjugates of capsular polysaccharide antigens of S. aureus, for use in protecting an immune-compromised individual from staphylococcal bacterial infection, "wherein said immune-compromised individual has nasal carriage of S. aureus" (see section II above for the complete wording of claim 1).

3. The examining division decided that the disclosure in document D4 anticipated the claimed subject-matter.

4. Document D4, an abstract published in April 2001, discloses the results of a clinical trial involving 1800 hemodialysis patients. In a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial, the efficacy of a bivalent S. aureus glycoconjugate vaccine that included capsular polysaccharide (CP) type 5 and 8 conjugated to a non-toxic recombinant exoprotein A from Pseudomonas aeruginosa, termed Nabi**(®) StaphVAX**(®), was evaluated. Ten months post-vaccination, 26 S. aureus bacteremias had occurred in the placebo group and 11 in the vaccinated group. This corresponded to a 57% reduction in the occurrence of bacteremia. Document D4 concludes "that StaphVAX**(®) was well tolerated, and can significantly reduce the incidence of S. aureus bacteremia in this at-risk population through approximately 10 months post-vaccination." Document D4 is silent about nasal carriage of S. aureus.

5. It is undisputed that the compound and the treated disorder disclosed in document D4 fall under the definitions in present claim 1, and that the patients disclosed in document D4 are immune-compromised. The question is whether they also have nasal carriage of S. aureus.

6. The reasoning of the examining division in holding that document D4 also disclosed the feature "wherein said immune-compromised individual has nasal carriage of S. aureus" can be summarised as follows: It was known from document D11 that hemodialysis patients showed a mean nasal carriage rate of 51.5% (range from 30.1% to 84.4%). Therefore, at least one third of the hemodialysis patients vaccinated according to document D4 carried S. aureus in their nasal cavity. Since the group of vaccinated patients was so large it was beyond reasonable doubt that at least one patient carrying S. aureus in his or her nasal cavity had been vaccinated. The examining division concluded that "thus, a patient group or individual patients defined by being immune-compromised having nasal carriage of Staphylococcal bacteria was/were inherently vaccinated in the prior art."

7. The Enlarged Board of Appeal, when considering, in its decision G 2/88 (OJ EPO 1990, 93, corr. 469), claims directed to a new use of a known compound, commented on the interpretation of Article 54(2) EPC as follows (see reasons, point 10): "Article 54(2) EPC defines the state of the art as comprising "everything made available to the public by means of a written or oral description, by use, or in any other way." (...) the question of what has been made available to the public is one of fact in each case. (...) In the case of a "written description" which is open for inspection, what is made available in particular is the information content of the written description. (...) In each such case, however, a line must be drawn between what is in fact made available, and what remains hidden or otherwise has not been made available" (emphasis added).

Furthermore, it stated in point 10.1 that "under Article 54(2) EPC the question to be decided is what has been "made available" to the public: the question is not what may have been "inherent" in what was made available (by a prior written description, or in what has previously been used (prior use), for example) (...)". [Note: However, see G 1/92]

8. For determining the information content - or disclosure - of a document, the boards have established certain principles to be observed. Thus, the information content of a document is what the skilled person derives directly and unambiguously, using common general knowledge, from the document as a whole, including features which for the skilled person are implicit in what is explicitly disclosed. In this context "implicit disclosure" means disclosure which any person skilled in the art would objectively consider as necessarily implied in the explicit content, e.g. in view of general scientific laws. In particular, the term "implicit disclosure" should not be construed to mean matter that does not belong to the content of the technical information provided by a document but may be rendered obvious on the basis of that content (see Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office, 7th edition 2013, sections I.C.3.1 and I.C.3.3).

9. Given the examining division's reasoning that in view of the disclosure of document D11 "a patient group or individual patients defined by being immune-compromised having nasal carriage of Staphylococcal bacteria was/were inherently vaccinated in the prior art" (see point 6 above), the question to be addressed in the light of the observations in points 7 and 8 above is, whether or not the skilled person would have directly and unambiguously derived this disclosure from document D4 when reading it with his common general knowledge about nasal carriage rates taught in document D11.

10. The board notes that the nasal carrier rates disclosed in document D11 were determined on the basis of reports of eight different studies on nasal carriage carried out between 1975 and 1991, while the study disclosed in document D4 was carried out in the year 2000.

11. In the board's judgement, the skilled person would not have considered that the nasal carriage rates disclosed in document D11 would necessarily also apply to the later study disclosed in document D4. This is so, firstly, because document D11 also discloses that the range of carriage rates reported is large, that older studies tended to find higher carriage rates and that changes in S. aureus nasal carriage may have occurred over the years (see paragraph bridging pages 505 and 506). Secondly, because the skilled person would have also known that it could not be excluded that the patients of document D4 were treated topically to eliminate nasal carriage (see e.g. document D11, page 505, right hand column, first paragraph).

12. Hence, the board concludes from points 8 to 11 above that the skilled person would not have derived directly and unambiguously, using common general knowledge, from document D4 as a whole, the disclosure that nasal carriage-positive patients were vaccinated.

13. Lastly, also in view of the boards' established case law that the use of the same compound in the treatment of the same disease for a particular group of subjects can nevertheless represent a novel therapeutic application, provided it is carried out on a new group of subjects which has a distinct physiological or pathological status (see e.g. T 19/86, OJ EPO 1989, 24, reasons, point 8; and T 893/90, reasons, point 4.2), the board comes to the conclusion that the claimed subject-matter is novel. The patient group concerned is distinguished from the patient group of document D4 by both its physiological (nasal carriage) and pathological (higher risk of bacteremia) status.

14. In view of the observations in points 8 to 13 above the board thus concludes that the subject-matter of claims 1 to 10 is not anticipated by the disclosure of document D4.

15. Similar considerations likewise apply to document D9.

16. Therefore the board decides that auxiliary request 1A fulfils the requirements of Article 54 EPC.

T 2517/11 - Implicit feature and inventive step

Key point

• A feature that is implicitly disclosed in the closest prior art document, can be considered as disclosed for the formulation of the objective technical problem and for the assessment of inventive step. The claimed invention relates to coding and decoding signals and the feature at issue was identifying some elements as having mirror symmetry. 

EPO Headnote
Le fait que l'existence d'une caractéristique technique "cachée" - à savoir une caractéristique implicitement présente dans un document de l'état de la technique dont l'existence ne saurait, cependant, être établie à la seule lecture du document considéré - d'un procédé connu de l'état de la technique ne puisse être établie qu'en ayant recours à une démonstration mathématique ne fait nullement obstacle à sa prise en compte en tant que caractéristique divulguée, la démonstration mathématique établissant le caractère accessible de la caractéristique "cachée". L'argument selon lequel il n'existe aucune raison objective de procéder à une telle démonstration n'affecte en rien ce constat (cf. points V et 5.2.1).

T 2517/11 -  link 

Exposé des faits et conclusions

II. La division d'examen a fondé son objection d'absence d'activité inventive sur le document:
D1: B. Edler, "Codierung von Audiosignalen mit Überlappender Transformation und adaptiven
Fensterfunktionen", pages 252-256, (XP 52987),

XII. La revendication 1 selon la requête unique s'énonce comme suit :
"1. Procédé de codage d'un signal numérique, par transformée avec recouvrement utilisant des fenêtres de pondération, dans lequel deux blocs d'échantillons du signal, consécutifs et de même taille (2M), sont pondérés respectivement par une première (ha1) et une deuxième fenêtre {ha2) d'analyse, et lesdites première et deuxième fenêtres comportant chacune un front montant et un front descendant, le front montant de la deuxième fenêtre (ha2) est différent du front descendant de la première fenêtre (ha1) retournée temporellement."

T 2052/14 - Schematic drawings

Key points

• The Board applies established case law that schematic drawings in a prior art patent document do not disclose the (relative) dimensions even if measuring the sizes in the drawing provides the feature at issue.
• " Zusammenfassend: Auch wenn die Figuren der Druckschrift D1 in der Prüfungsabteilung den Eindruck erweckt haben, dem Merkmal des kennzeichnenden Teils des Anspruchs 1 zu entsprechen, so stellt dies in diesem Fall aus den oben benannten Gründen keine direkte und unmittelbare Offenbarung für den Fachmann da, weil dieser weiß, dass es sich bei den Figuren der Patentschrift D1 nur um schematische Darstellungen handelt, aus denen er in diesem Fall ohne entsprechende Hinweise keine konkreten Größen oder Größenverhältnisse bezüglich des Wellungs­profils des Außenrohrs ableiten kann." 

EPO T 2052/14 - link

1.3 Hinsichtlich der Offenbarung des im kennzeichnenden Teils des Anspruchs 1 angegebenen Bereichs des Längen/Krümmungsradius-Verhältnisses, hat die Prüfungs­abteilung auf die Figuren der Druckschrift D1 verwiesen, die ein Verhältnis von 0,9 zeigen.

Diese Feststellung hält jedoch einer Überprüfung durch die Kammer nicht stand.

[...]

1.3.2 Da die Figuren der Druckschrift D1 [EP 1 748 243 A2] nicht als maßstabs­getreue Zeichnungen gekennzeichnet sind, stellen sie nur übliche schematische Zeichnungen dar, die das, was in der betreffenden Druckschrift wesentlich erscheint, angeben, aber in aller Regel nicht alle betreffenden Teile maßstabsgetreu wiedergeben müssen. Somit stellt sich die Frage, ob der zuständige Fachmann dem nur zeichnerisch dargestellten Merkmal unmittelbar und eindeutig eine technische Lehre bezüglich des Wellungs­profils des Außenrohrs vermittelt (T0204/83, AB 1985, 310, Punkt 4).

T 2618/11 - Disclosed or undisclosed disclaimer

T 2618/11

For the decision, click here

Key points

• In the application as filed, the peroxide compound ACSP was discussed in the application as filed in respect of the prior art. The application as filed mentions that this peroxide is not effective.
• The claim at issue included the feature: "using one more organic peroxides not including acetyl-cyclohexyl-sulfonyl-peroxide (ACSP)".
• The Board decides that this is a disclaimer and that it is not allowable: the disclaimer is not a disclosed disclaimer (G2/10) since the disclaimed compounds are not disclosed as part of the subject-matter of the invention, neither is it  allowable as undisclosed disclaimer (G1/03) because an undisclosed disclaimer can not be used to exclude non-working embodiments.

Summary of Facts and Submissions

II. The patent was granted with a set of 7 claims, claim 1 reading as follows:

"Process to polymerize vinyl chloride monomer and optional further monomers using one or more organic peroxides, with at least part of the peroxide being dosed in the polymerization mixture at the reaction temperature, characterized in that essentially all of the organic peroxide used in the polymerization process has a half-life of from 0.05 hour to 1.0 hour at the polymerization temperature, the vinylchloride based (co)polymer having less than 50 parts by weight of residual peroxide based on one million parts by weight of the (co)polymer, when measured immediately after polymerization and drying of the (co)polymer for 1 hour at 60°C".

[...]

Claim 1 of the [third] auxiliary request corresponded to the main request, but introduced the following wording after the phrase "organic peroxides":

"not including acetyl-cyclohexyl-sulfonyl-peroxide (ACSP),".

Claim 1 of the [fourth] auxiliary request corresponded to the main request but introduced the following wording after the phrase "organic peroxides": "not including acetyl-cyclohexyl-sulfonyl-peroxide (ACSP) and peroxydicarbonates,".

X. The arguments of the appellant/patent proprietor can be summarised as follows: [...]

c) Third and fourth auxiliary requests

The compounds excluded by disclaimer were discussed in the application as not being suitable, which statement had resulted in an objection pursuant to Art. 83 EPC during the opposition procedure. Said statement provided a basis for the exclusion of said compounds by "disclosed disclaimer".

Reasons for the Decision

4. Third and fourth auxiliary requests

4.1 The objections raised in respect of the main request also apply to the third and fourth auxiliary requests, since the corresponding parts of the claims do not differ.

4.2 Regarding the "disclaimer" type formulations, the compounds specified are discussed in the application as filed in respect of the prior art and it is said that said peroxides are not effective. Consequently it is apparent that the purpose of the disclaimer is not to exclude novelty destroying subject-matter but to exclude subject-matter that seemingly would not solve the technical problem, i.e. to address a potential defect pursuant to Art. 56 EPC. As held in G 1/03, in such a case a disclaimer is not admissible.

Since the disclaimed compounds are not disclosed as part of the subject-matter of the invention, the findings of decision G2/10 on so-called "disclosed disclaimers" is also not applicable. For this reason, too, the claims 1 of the third and fourth auxiliary requests do not meet the requirements of Art. 123(2) EPC.

4.3 The third and fourth auxiliary requests are therefore refused.

T 1437/10 - Double patenting

Key points 

• The Board does not admit a set of claims defining subject-matter being essentially identical to the scope of protection of the granted divisional filed from the present parent, as a decision thereon is "superfluous".
• US provisional without claims as priority document - the Board analyzes that sections 1 and 2 of the priority document disclose an invention in the sense of Article 87(1) EPC, and that sections 4 and 5 do not disclose essential features. Hence, the claims do not need to include the features of sections 4 and 5 for valid priority. 

This post has been prepared in advance.

T 1437/10 - 20.04.2015

Dated 12.02.2015 -Board 3.5.02 (Ruggiu, Bronold, Muhlens) - publication C - for the decision, click here

Reasons for the Decision