Interruption of blogging

Due to circumstances, I will interrupt the blogging here at least for some time.

T 2644/11 - Novelty and reference

EPO T 2644/11

For the decision, click here


Key points

• At issue was whether an earlier filing (D1) by the same applicant had disclosed the same invention and hence whether the claimed priority was valid. D1 also formed a A54(3) prior right. Accordingly, the Board seems to examine whether D1 discloses an anticipating embodiment.
• " The only question remaining is whether the reference to documents D2 and D3 in the sentence bridging pages 44 and 45 can be seen as an implicit disclosure of the water soluble silicones listed in claim 1. The crucial sentence reads as follows: "Non-limiting examples of suitable silicone hair conditioning agents, and optional suspending agents for the silicone, are described in [D2] and [D3] , which descriptions are incorporated herein by reference" 
• D2 mentioned a silicone falling under claim 1, however in a paragraph relating to non-ionic surfactants rather than in the paragrpaph of D2 relating to hair conditioning agents. Therefore, the Board finds that D1 does not anticipate the claim.
• The Board: " Independently of whether the skilled person would know or not that the silicones disclosed as nonionic surfactants could perform a hair conditioning function, he would not interpret the sentence in D1 as an invitation to scan the whole of the disclosure of D2 and D3 in order to find suitable silicone hair conditioning agents, but as a clear pointer to the part of the disclosure relating to silicones as hair conditioning agents." 

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. European Patent No. 1 841 402 claiming priority of the US patent application 11/014,424 filed on 16 December 2004 was granted on the basis of 25 claims, claim 1 reading as follows:

"1. A shampoo composition comprising:

a) at least one minced polygalactomannan derivatized with a cationic substituent obtainable by; i) swelling a split of cassia with water in the presence of a cationic derivatizing agent capable of reacting with the hydroxyl group in the galactose and mannose units in the galactomannan backbone of the split to form a swollen split, optionally followed by dispersing the swollen split in a water/organic solvent mixture, and (ii) at least one step of wet-mincing the product obtained under (i);

b) a cleansing surfactant selected from anionic, cationic, amphoteric, and zwitterionic detersive surfactants, and mixtures thereof;

c) a water soluble silicone compound;

d) water."

Dependent claims 10 and 13 defined shampoo compositions according to claim 1 wherein the water soluble silicone was a polysiloxane containing a backbone segment represented by a specific chemical formula (claim 10) or was selected from one or more compounds represented by six chemical formulae (claim 13).

II. A notice of opposition was filed against the granted patent requesting revocation of the patent in its entirety.

III. During opposition proceedings the following documents inter alia were cited:

D1: WO-A-2004/113390 (filed on 19 June 2004 claiming the priority date of 20 June 2003 and published on 29 December 2004)

T 2420/10 - Problem in the claim

EPO T 2420/10

For the decision, click here.

Key points

• This decision provides an example of the importance of defining in the independent claim  not only those features providing the solution, but also those features which define the embodiments wherein the problem to be solved can occur. A claim should not encompass a large number of embodiments for which the allegedly solved problem does not occur at all, in view of the requirement of inventive step. 
• " Nach ständiger Rechtsprechung der Beschwerdekammern sollte die objektive Aufgabe so formuliert werden, dass sie durch das unterscheidende Merkmal über die volle Breite des Anspruchs gelöst wird. Offensichtlich wird dieses Kriterium nicht erfüllt, wenn der Anspruch so formuliert ist, dass für einen Großteil des beanspruchten Gegenstandes kein solches Problem entstehen würde." 

Entscheidungsgründe
[...]

6. Hilfsantrag 3: Neuheit

6.1 Wie oben unter Punkt IV erwähnt ist der Anspruch 1 gemäß Hilfsantrag 3 identisch mit dem Anspruch 1 gemäß Hilfsantrag 2, außer dass das fakultative Merkmal, dass die Düsenöffnung in Form eines Schlitzes ausgestaltet ist, gestrichen ist.

Während Anspruch 1 des erteilten Patents drei fakultative Optionen definiert, bleibt im Anspruch 1 gemäß Hilfsantrag 3 nur eine davon übrig, welche folglich nicht mehr fakultative ist, nämlich:

"dass sich der Behandlungskanal in einem Abschnitt zwischen der mindestens einen Düsenöffnung (8) und dem Auslaufbereich (16) in der Transportrichtung (18) vergrößert".

Die entscheidende Frage lautet daher, ob Dokument OI-D12 dieses Merkmal offenbart.

6.2 In der mündlichen Verhandlung hat die Beschwerdeführerin argumentiert, dass dieses Merkmal so interpretiert werden solle, dass sich der Behandlungskanal im gesamten Abschnitt von der Düsenöffnung bis zum Auslaufbereich ständig vergrößere. Insbesondere müsse diese Interpretation nach Auffassung der Beschwerdeführerin angewendet werden, weil nur bei dieser Konfiguration der gewünschte "Venturi-Effekt" erreicht werden könne (Streitpatent, Absätze [0018]-[0019], und siehe V(ix), oben).

6.3 Die Kammer teilt die Auffassung der Beschwerdeführerin nicht. Bei der Beurteilung, ob ein Merkmal aus dem Stand der Technik bekannt ist oder nicht, sollte nach der ständigen Rechtsprechung der Beschwerdekammer seinem Wortlaut die breiteste technisch sinnvolle Bedeutung beigemessen werden (vgl. T 79/96, Entscheidungsgründe Punkt 2.1.3).

T 0236/11 - Document yet admitted

EPO T 0236/11

For the decision, click here
Key points

• A late filed document D6 was not admitted into the procedure the OD.
• The Board admits the document D6, because the document was particularly relevant for the amended claims filed in appeal. 
• An auxiliary request was filed during the oral proceedings. This request is not admitted, because the claims as amended are a surprising development in view of the previously filed requests.

Entscheidungsgründe

1. Die Beschwerde ist zulässig.

2. Ausführbarkeit - Hauptantrag (Artikel 83 EPÜ)

Die Beschwerdeführerin hat vorgebracht, dass der Fachmann nicht wissen würde, wie die Stellung einer Ampel durch kamera- oder videobasierte Sensorik erkannt werden könnte. Die Kammer hat jedoch keinen Zweifel, dass die Kenntnisse des Fachmanns bezüglich Bilderkennung für die Lösung dieser Aufgabe ausreichend waren. Die Tatsache, dass die einzige Lehre des Patents zur Erkennung der Ampelstellung ein Verfahren betrifft, das Informationen aus der digitalen Karte eines Navigationssystems verwendet (siehe Absatz [0049] des Streitpatents), ist in diesem Zusammenhang ohne Belang, weil der Fachmann durchaus in der Lage war, Erkennungsverfahren auszuführen, die nur die kamera- oder videobasierte Sensorik verwenden. Die digitale Karte könnte dagegen lediglich Information über den Standort der Ampel enthalten, welche für das Erkennen deren Stellung kaum behilflich sein könnte. Die Kammer ist daher der Auffassung, dass das Patent die Erfindung des Hauptantrags so deutlich und vollständig offenbart, dass ein Fachmann zum Prioritätsdatum sie Ausführen konnte.

3. Zulässigkeit der Druckschriften D6, D9 und D10

3.1 Die Druckschrift D6 wurde während des Verfahrens vor der Einspruchsabteilung mit Schreiben vom 8. September 2010 (die Antwort der Einsprechenden zur Ladung zur mündlichen Verhandlung) eingereicht. In der mündlichen Verhandlung vom 13. Oktober 2010 entschied die Abteilung sie nicht in das Verfahren zuzulassen. Diese Entscheidung wurde damit begründet, dass in D6 der Aspekt der Priorisierung von Hinweisen nicht so deutlich wie in den bereits im Verfahren befindlichen Dokumenten offenbart war (siehe Punkt 10.4 der angefochtenen Entscheidung). Es ist aber aus der angefochtenen Entscheidung ersichtlich, dass die Entscheidung, D6 nicht in das Verfahren zuzulassen, zu einem Zeitpunkt getroffen wurde, an dem die Merkmale bezüglich der Ampelanlagen noch nicht zu Diskussion gekommen worden waren. Die Tatsache, dass D6 eine Lehre zu diesem Thema enthält (siehe D6, Absatz [0032]), die über die der vorher in das Verfahren befindlichen Dokumente hinausgeht, ist anscheinend von der Einspruchsabteilung nicht berücksichtigt worden. Da das im vorliegenden Hauptantrag definierte Verfahren eine Ampelanlage betrifft, ist diese zusätzliche Lehre der Druckschrift D6 jetzt relevant geworden. Da keine der vorher im Verfahren befindlichen Dokumente Ampelanlagen erwähnt, findet die Kammer, dass D6 für die Beurteilung der erfinderischen Tätigkeit des Gegenstands des vorliegenden Hauptantrags prima facie relevant ist.

T 0724/10 - Wrong request

T 0724/10

For the decision, click here.
Key points

• In this opposition appeal case, the OD seems to have decided on the (withdrawn) first auxiliary request as submitted on the first on the first day of the oral proceedings, and not on the final first auxiliary request submitted on the second day of the oral proceedings.
• The Board decides that constitutes a substantial procedural violation and remits the case.
• The application has as filing date 16.04.1991, was filed as divisional in 2002, and was granted in 2006. 

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The patent proprietor (hereinafter: the appellant) appeals the opposition division's decision, dated 8 March 2010, to revoke European patent No. EP 1 197 830.

II. The patent originates from European patent application EP02000378.6, a divisional of the earlier application EP99118308.8 (the "parent application"). The parent application is, in turn, a divisional application originating from the application EP919083741.1 (the "root application"), published as WO 91/16680 A1.

III. The opposition division revoked the patent on the ground that the subject-matter of "all requests" extended beyond the content of the root application as filed (Article 100(c) EPC).

IV. The requests at the start of the oral proceedings lasting two days (from 8 to 9 December 2009) were a main request and four auxiliary requests (I to IV) filed with letter dated 5 November 2009.

V. On the first day of oral proceedings , the proprietor filed amended auxiliary requests I and II; the previous auxiliary requests I to IV were maintained and renumbered as auxiliary requests III to VI.

VI. On the second day of the oral proceedings, the proprietor submitted a new version of auxiliary request I, replacing both auxiliary requests I and II filed the day before. The other auxiliary request were again renumbered, this time as auxiliary requests II to V. At the end of the oral proceedings, the requests were, thus, as follows:

- the main request of 5 November 2009;

- auxiliary request I of 9 December 2009;

- auxiliary requests II to V corresponding to

auxiliary requests I to IV of 5 November 2009.

VII. The appellant requested that the decision under appeal be set aside and that the patent be maintained on the basis of the main request of 5 November 2009 or one of the following auxiliary requests:

[...]

The appellant also requested the reimbursement of the appeal fee on the ground of a substantial procedural violation (Rule 103(1)(a) EPC), and oral proceedings as an auxiliary request.

The appellant's arguments, in so far they are relevant to the present decision, can be summarized as follows:

In its decision, the opposition division did not give reasons why auxiliary request I, as filed on the second day of the oral proceedings, contravened Article 100(c) EPC. Instead, the decision dealt with the withdrawn auxiliary requests I and II, filed on the first day of the oral proceedings. Ignoring the proprietor's amended requests was a substantial procedural violation according to T 543/92 and T 89/94.

Reasons for the Decision

1. Substantial procedural violation

1.1 According to Article 113(2) EPC, the EPO shall examine, and decide upon, the European patent application or the European patent only in the text submitted to it, or agreed, by the applicant or the proprietor of the patent.

1.2 The decision of the opposition division does not explicitly define the requests on which it is based. However, in section 3.4, reference is made to the feature:

"wherein when the operation code is part of a request packet consisting of a contiguous serious of bytes, the access time is also representative of a time between receipt of the request and the corresponding response"

This feature is defined in claim 1 according to the version of auxiliary request I filed on the first day of the oral proceedings, but not in the version filed on the second day. Furthermore, the decision mentions no feature present in the request filed on the second day, but not in the in the request filed on the first day.

Similarly, section 3.5 recites the feature:

"wherein, when the operation code is part of a request packet consisting of a contiguous series of bytes, the the value stored in the register is also representative of a time between receipt of the request and the corresponding response,

wherein, when the operation code is not part of a request packet, the value stored in the register is also representative of a time between receipt of all information required to enable the memory device to respond to the operation code and the corresponding response".

This feature is defined in claim 1 according to auxiliary request II, filed on the first day of the oral proceedings and withdrawn on the second day, but not in the auxiliary request that was renumbered as auxiliary request II during the second day.

1.3 The Board cannot conclude that this was a mere mistake in the written decision, but considers that the decision to revoke the patent was taken on a version of the claims no longer maintained by the appellant in violation of Article 113(2) EPC.

1.4 Opponent II argued that the proprietor was not adversely affected by this. The Board disagrees. Enshrined in Article 113(2) EPC is the principle of party disposition. It gives the patent applicant, or patent proprietor, the right to dispose of its requests as it sees fit, and, thereby, the right to control the subject-matter forming the basis of the procedure. This is a procedural right of such fundamental importance that any infringement of it must, in principle, be considered as a substantial procedural violation (T 647/93, OJ EPO 1995, 132).

1.5 In view of the substantial procedural violation in the first instance proceedings, the Board sees no other option than to remit the case to the first instance for consideration of the requests put forward by the proprietor (Article 111(1) EPC; Article 11 RPBA). The Board considers reimbursement of the appeal fee to be equitable in the present circumstances (Rule 103(1)(a) EPC). The Board remits the case because of a fundamental deficiency (serious procedural flaw). This should not be understood as reflecting disapproval, or indeed approval, of the opposition division's substantive reasoning. The Board refrains from making any comment on the matter.

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

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

2. The appeal fee is to be reimbursed.

T 0653/15 - Payment is not appeal

EPO T 653/15

For the decision, click here.

Key points

• The applicant has only paid the appeal fee by debit order, with the following remark:
  "Suite à la décision de rejet du 27.10.2014, nous pro­cédons au règlement de la taxe de recours de la demande de brevet européen n° 09737080.3". The applicant (seems) to consider this as forming a Notice of appeal.
• The Board finds that this remark on the debit order form can not be considered to constitute a Notice of Appeal, following J 19/90.
• The appeal is held inadmissible. No refund of the appeal fee is ordered, in contrast to J19/90.

Exposé des faits et conclusions

I. Le déposant a contesté la décision de la division d'examen, postée le 27 octobre 2014, re­je­tant la demande de brevet européen no. 09 737 080.3.

II. Le 16 décembre 2014, la requérante a demandé à l'Office européen des brevets par voie électronique de préleve­r de son compte la taxe de recours. Cette demande par voie électronique contient l'annotation suivante:

"Suite à la décision de rejet du 27.10.2014, nous pro­cédons au règlement de la taxe de recours de la demande de brevet européen n° 09737080.3".

J 0024/13 - Stay of proceedings

EPO J 24/13

For the decision, click here

Key points

• A third party had obtained a stay of the grant procedure  under Rule 14 EPC based on an entitlement action in Belgium.
• The third party had recognised that it was not in a position to pursue this (first) entitlement action due to a lack of evidence. Therefore, it had withdrawn ("waived") "without prejudice" the Belgian entitlement action against the applicant. The applicant refused the waiver, so that the entitlement action formally continued. However no further action was taken in that Belgium action, instead a procedure including discovery was started in the USA.
• The Board: " In such circumstances, the third party cannot be regarded as truly seeking a national court decision recognising its right to the patent. In drawing this conclusion the Board is not considering the merits of the entitlement proceedings, as it is not within its competence to do so, but accepts the conclusion drawn by the respondent itself that its case before the Belgian Court was without prospect of success in the case at issue." 
• Therefore, a date for resumption of the procedure is set by the Board.
  

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The appeal lies from the decision by the Legal Division of 14 June 2013 refusing the applicant's main request that "the suspension of the grant proceedings be undone" and the auxiliary request that "a date for the resumption of the proceedings be set pursuant to Rule 14(3) EPC". The decision under appeal concerns both European patent applications Nos. 08 749 615.4 and 08 736 405.5. The present decision deals only with the first application.

T 1900/10 - More time required

EPO T 1900/10

For the decision, click here.

Key points

• The present appeal against the refusal is successful. The request for reimbursement of the appeal fee is not granted, because no substantial procedural violation had occurred. " The board finds that the representative was given adequate time [during oral proceedings before the Examining Division] to consider the objections."

Reasons for the Decision

1. The appeal is admissible [...]

5.8 In view of the above, the reasons given in the decision under appeal did not convince the board that the application does not disclose the invention claimed in claim 15 of the main request, first auxiliary request or second auxiliary request in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art.

6. Analogous considerations apply to the other independent claims, which relate to a machine-readable medium, a system and an apparatus which are specified by a reference to other independent claims.

T 1461/12 - Challenging COMVIK

EPO T 1461/12

For the decision, click here

Key points

• In this appeal against the refusal of the application, the appellant argued that the examining di­vi­sion, misled by T 641/00 (Comvik), applied the outda­ted "con­tri­bution approach". The board disagrees.
• "Evidently, an inventive step vis-à-vis the prior art depends on the "contribution" the claimed invention makes over the pri­or art. Establishing this contri­bu­tion is necessary in any me­thod of assessing in­ven­tive step, T 641/00 included, but is not equivalent to the ' contribution approach'  as explained above."
• "As regards the 'COMVIK approach', the board agrees that efforts must be made to apply it in a fair manner (see T 928/03, reasons 5.3.3) and that the ob­jec­tive technical problem formulated in this context should not be a merely academic or a contrived one but one that can reasonably be assumed to have arisen at the priority date (see, e.g., T 905/09 [...])"

Reasons for the Decision

Request for expedited processing

1. The appellant argued (see grounds of appeal, point 1.6) that its appeal "raise[d] fundamental issues in the exami­nation of the Appellant's proprietary rights by the first instance of the EPO, [...] closely reflect[ing] the con­cerns raised by the Enlarged Board of Appeal in G0003/08 and, more parti­cu­lar­ly, the assessment of what amounts to 'technical' sub­ject matter (in the context of an assessment to exclu­sion under Art.52(2) & (3) EPC) and the appropri­ateness of the current tests therefor, e.g. under T641/00-Comvik and T0154/04-Duns Licensing", and because "the subject-matter of the application [was] of commercial importance to the Appellant".

2. In the annex to the summons, the board observed that none of the appellant's reasons is expressly men­tioned in the pertinent Notice from the Vice-Pre­sident Direc­torate-General 3 dated 17 March 2008 (OJ EPO 2008, 220), that the alleged commercial im­por­tance of the appli­cation to the appellant was not sub­stantiated in the grounds of appeal, and that it did not share the appellant's view that this appeal raised issues of such fundamental im­por­tance as to justify accelerated pro­cessing of this case. Therefore, the board did not allow the appellant's request for expedited processing.

T 1952/12 - Enterprise software

EPO T 1952/12

For the decision, click here. 

Key points

• This case relates to inventive step of a claim for an invention relating to enterprise software. 
• The Board notes that  " In the board's view, the requirement for inventions to be technical implies that what the skilled person would or would not find obvious to do must be assessed accor­ding to technical criteria only. A technically obvious solution does not become non-obvious for the purpose of inventive step (Article 56 EPC 1973) if the solution turns out to be impracticable, too costly or illegal." 

Reasons for the Decision

The invention

1. The application relates to enterprise software and, in this context, to what is called "transaction pro­cessing". It is explained that users initiate trans­actions (see application as filed, p. 2, 1st para.) and that transactions "result in one or more postings" (p. 2, 2nd para.). It is not specifically explained what a "posting" is, except that it is "encoded" by pre­defined "codes" such as area codes or cost center codes (loc. cit.). Codes are entered by the users through a suitable user interface (see Fig. 5).

T 1021/11 - Double second medical use claim

EPO T 1021/11

For the decision, click here.  [C]

EPO Headnote
Main request: Two independent claims for the same medical use; one claim under the provisions of EPC 1973 invoking legal fiction in G 5/83 and other claim under the provisions of Article 54(5) EPC 2000 (yes)
Key points

• The main request of this examination appeal case included two independent claims for the same second medical use, one claim drafted in the Swiss-type format, the other following Article 54(5) EPC 2000. This was allowable, because the application was pending when G 2/08 was issued. 
• According to the Board, the issue of double patenting does not arise, because the claims  differ in their subject-matter. In particular, in addition to the definition of the compound and the therapeutic use present in both claim formats, the Swiss-type claim comprises the feature of manufacturing a medicament and therefore differs also in this respect from a claim formulated according to the provisions of Article 54(5) EPC.

Reasons for the Decision

Second medical indication - allowability of "Swiss-type" and "Article 54(5) EPC-type" claims

34. The main request comprises two independent claims (claim 1 and claim 8) for the same medical indication of the same substance, one claim drafted in the Swiss-type format (use of substance X for the manufacture of a medicament for the treatment of disease Y) and the other claim following the provisions in Article 54(5) EPC (substance X for use in the treatment of disease Y).

T 0350/12 - Computer translation

EPO T 350/12

For the decision, click here.

Key points

• The Opponent relied on a computer translation of a Japanese patent as prior art.
• The Board unsurprisingly finds: 
"The Board agrees that the computer translation is of such poor quality that it cannot be relied upon, other than to aid interpretation of the figures contained in the original Japanese document and the Abstract."

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The appeal lies from the decision of the opposition division rejecting the oppositions against the European Patent EP-B-1 607 149.

II. Opponent II (hereinafter: the "appellant") filed notice and grounds of appeal against this decision in due form and time.

In its grounds of appeal the appellant based its case on the following documents which had been cited in the opposition proceedings:

OII-D9: DE-A-197 18 529;

OII-D5: EP-A-0 763 391;

OI-D6: JP 06 339 717 with computer translation into English, and Patent Abstracts of Japan;

[...]

T 0184/13 - Reintroduced request not admitted

T 0184/13

For the decision, click here

Key points

• If a claim request is withdrawn before the ED, it can not be presented in appeal: the request is not admitted into the proceedings (Article 12(4) RPBA).
• "The board sees the appellant's argument that the amendment filed to overcome the objections of the examining division "was not in fact necessary" [...] as reinforcing its view that the appellant should indeed have maintained those claims before the examining division e.g. by filing them at least as an auxiliary request so that it would have obtained an appealable decision on them. " 

Reasons for the Decision

1. MAIN REQUEST

This request corresponds to the set of claims filed for the first time in the first-instance proceedings on 3 May 2012 (as the then applicant's sole claim request).

1.1 Admission into the appeal proceedings

The claims of this request had already been discussed and objected to under Articles 123(2) and 84 EPC [...] in the first-instance proceedings (see minutes of the oral proceedings held on 13 June 2012 before the examining division, items 3.1 and 3.2). The then applicant, of its own volition, subsequently replaced those claims with a new set of claims including an amendment in order to overcome those objections (cf. minutes of the first-instance oral proceedings, item 5). On the basis of this amended claim request the application was eventually refused under Article 56 EPC (cf. point I above). Furthermore, the appellant did not provide any further substantiation, as to the objections raised by the examining division under Articles 123(2) and 84 EPC, for re-filing the abandoned claims in the appeal proceedings.

It follows from the above that the claims of the present main request had already been presented in the first-instance proceedings and were thereafter abandoned. That prevented them from being decided on their merits by the examining division, with the consequence that this board would have to decide on the main request as if it were a first-instance department. Such a situation, however, is generally to be avoided (see e.g. ex parte cases T 922/08, point 2.1; T 2278/08, point 2; T 1231/09, point 1). The board concludes therefrom that this claim request not only could but also should have been presented and prosecuted in the examination proceedings within the meaning of Article 12(4) RPBA.

The board sees the appellant's argument that the amendment filed to overcome the objections of the examining division "was not in fact necessary" (see statement setting out the grounds of appeal, page 3, third paragraph) as reinforcing its view that the appellant should indeed have maintained those claims before the examining division e.g. by filing them at least as an auxiliary request so that it would have obtained an appealable decision on them. Therefore, in the exercise of its discretion, the board declined to admit this request into the appeal proceedings.

1.2 In conclusion, the main request is not admissible under Article 12(4) RPBA.

T 1995/12 - Unity of invention

EPO T 1995/12

For the decision, click here.

Key points

• Claim 1 on entry of the regional phase was based on claim 32 of the PCT application, which was searched. Claim 1 also includes features of claims 21 and 35 , which claims were not searched as being directed to a second invention. The description disclosed these features also for the first invention, such that the claim has basis in the application as filed.  The Board decides that, for the purpose of Rule 164, claim 1 is directed to a searched invention. 

Entscheidungsgründe

3. Regel 164 EPÜ - Prüfung der Einheitlichkeit durch das Europäische Patentamt

3.1 Die mit der internationalen Anmeldung eingereichten Ansprüche sind vom Europäischen Patentamt als Internationale Recherchenbehörde als nicht einheitlich angesehen worden. Der entsprechenden Aufforderung zur Zahlung weiterer Recherchengebühren ist die Anmelderin nicht nachgekommen, sodass nur die der ersten Erfindung zugeordneten Ansprüche 1 bis 13 und 32 bis 34 Gegenstand einer Recherche gewesen sind. Der vorliegende, geänderte Anspruch 1 weist jedoch nicht nur Merkmale der recherchierten Ansprüche 1, 32 und 34 auf, sondern auch Charakteristika der ursprünglichen Ansprüche 21 und 35, die der zweiten und dritten Erfindung zugeordnet und mangels Gebühren­zahlung nicht recherchiert worden sind. Aufgrund dieser Konstellation ist zu klären, ob die Anmeldungsunterlagen nach dem vorliegenden Hauptantrag die Erfordernisse von Regel 164 (2) EPÜ in der hier anwendbaren, vom 1. April 2010 bis zum 31. Oktober 2014 gültigen Fassung (im Folgenden bezeichnet als Regel 164 (2) EPÜ) erfüllen, die im zweiten Halbsatz vorsieht, dass die Anmeldung auf eine einzige Erfindung zu begrenzen ist, die im internationalen Recherchenbericht (oder im ergänzenden europäischen Recherchenbericht) behandelt wurde.

3.2 Die Erläuterungen zur Regel 164 (2) EPÜ in Dokument CA/PL 17/06 (vgl. Sonderausgabe 5 zum ABl. EPA 2007, 278) betonen, dass in Übereinstimmung mit der Stellungnahme G 2/92 (vgl. ABl. EPA 1993, 591) eine Sachprüfung grundsätzlich nur in Bezug auf eine recherchierte Erfindung durchgeführt wird.

Folglich soll der hier relevante zweite Halbsatz der Regel 164 (2) EPÜ insbesondere verhindern, dass während des Erteilungsverfahrens einer Euro-PCT-Anmeldung von einer recherchierten Erfindung auf eine ursprünglich beanspruchte, aber wegen Nicht-Zahlung der zusätzlichen Recherchengebühr nicht recherchierte Erfindung gewechselt wird.

3.3 Im vorliegenden Fall ist in dieser Hinsicht festzu­stellen, dass der geltende Anspruch 1 sämtliche Merkmale des ursprünglichen Anspruchs 32 aufweist. Er betrifft damit weiterhin die erste, recherchierte Erfindung, die mit Merkmalen der ursprünglichen Ansprüche 21 und 35, die der zweiten bzw. dritten Erfindung zugeordnet worden sind, weiter eingeschränkt ist, wofür es in der ursprünglichen Beschreibung auf Seite 12, zweiter Absatz, sowie im einzigen Ausführungsbeispiel ab Seite 13 eine grundsätzliche Offenbarung gibt. Es wird also mit dem vorliegenden Verwendungsanspruch 1 weiterhin Schutz für den als erste Erfindung benannten Gegenstand begehrt. Da dieser im internationalen Recherchenbericht behandelt worden ist, liegt kein Wechsel zu einer nicht recherchierten Erfindung vor, was zu verhindern, wie oben dargelegt, die Intention der Regel 164 (2), zweiter Halbsatz, EPÜ ist. Deren Vorschriften stehen dem Hauptantrag folglich nicht entgegen.

T 0595/11 - Underpayment and good faith

EPO T 0595/11

For the decision, click here.

EPO Headnote

1. When deciding on the possible consequences of the Office's failure to meet its obligation to check a fee payment, the merely conjectural possibility of a real, but otherwise in itself not necessarily decisive setback (here the non-occurrence of an immediate success) for a party [i.e. the respondent] is more preferable than a certain decisive loss of all rights for another party [the appellant], in particular when for a long time none of the parties expected the latter, see Reasons 1.13

2. Fee payment is not an issue of admissibility of the appeal, but rather a precondition for the very existence of the appeal, i.e. its deemed filing, see Reasons 1.15

Key points

• If the EPO does not note the underpayment of the appeal fee quickly, the underpayment does not result in inadmissibility of the appeal because of the principle of good faith. 
• If a non-entitled person files a Notice of Appeal in the language of a Contracting State other than an EPO language, and the EPO does not note this until late in the appeal, this incorrect language neither affects the appeal, also based on the principle of good faith.
• The remark that fee payment is a precondition for the very existence of the appeal is quite curious in view of pending referral G 1 /14 about that topic. 

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The appeal lies from the decision of the opposition division, dated 8 December 2010 and posted on 12 January 2011 to revoke the European patent No. 1 579 759 pursuant to Article 101(3)(b) EPC.

II. The opposition was filed against the patent as a whole and based on Article 100(a) in conjunction with Articles 52(1), 54, and 56, Article 100(b) in conjunction with Article 83, and Article 100(c) in conjunction with Article 123(2) EPC.

The opposition division held that the main request, submitted during the oral proceedings and based on claim 1 as granted, did not meet the requirements of the EPC, for lack of novelty of claim 1. In its decision the division considered the following prior art, amongst others: [...]

III. The appellant proprietor is Lely Enterprises AG, Bützenweg 20, CH-6300 Zug, Switzerland, a legal person registered in Switzerland. They filed a notice of appeal in Dutch on 11 March 2011, with a simultaneously filed English translation. A debit order for the payment of EUR 944 as appeal fee was enclosed with the notice of appeal. The latter stated that the debit order was for a reduced appeal fee under Article 14(4) and Rule 6(3) EPC. The statement of grounds of appeal was submitted on 20 May 2011.

T 0206/13 - Sufficiency and preferred features

EPO T 206/13

For the decision, click here.

Key points

• The present decision shows how to rebut an objection that the claim is too broad under Article 84 EPC.
• The Board states that for sufficiency of disclosure, also the embodiments of dependent claims and of optional features in claims must be disclosed in an enabling way. 

Reasons for the Decision

[...]

3. Main request - Sufficiency of disclosure

3.1 The invention pertains to the field of surface-enhanced spectroscopy (SES), and more particularly to the field of SES-active composite nanoparticles, and claim 1 is directed to a particle comprising a SES-active analyte bound to a metal nanoparticle, both the analyte and the nanoparticle being surrounded by an encapsulant. In addition, according to dependent claim 11 the encapsulant "comprises a polymer, preferably a polymer that does not interfere with the SERS activity".

In its decision the examining division held that a particle as defined in claim 1 with an encapsulant comprising a polymer as defined in dependent claim 11, and more particularly [preferably] with a polymer that does not interfere with the surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy activity, was not sufficiently disclosed within the meaning of Article 83 EPC.

3.2 With the statement setting out the grounds of appeal the appellant submitted that, due to the expression "preferably" in the formulation of dependent claim 11, the preferred feature constituted only an illustrative and non-limiting feature and therefore an optional feature that does not restrict the claimed subject-matter. According to the appellant's contention, the preferred feature would not be relevant for the assessment of sufficiency of disclosure.

The Board, however, cannot accept the appellant's submissions to the effect that preferred or optional features defined in a claim should be disregarded in the assessment under Article 83 EPC. According to the established case law the requirement of sufficiency of disclosure defined in Article 83 EPC is only complied with if the disclosure of the invention allows the skilled person to perform, without undue burden, essentially all the embodiments covered by the claimed invention (see "Case law of the Boards of Appeal", EPO, 7th ed., 2013, Chapter II, section C-4.4). This applies in particular to the specific particular embodiments of an invention defined in dependent claims pursuant to Rule 43(3) EPC (see for instance decision T 1011/01, point 2.3 of the reasons) and, by the same token, to any optional feature defined in a claim since such a feature also constitutes, by its very nature, a particular embodiment of the claimed invention, irrespective of whether the optional feature is qualified as being "preferred" or not.

T 2430/11 - Deleting alternatives

EPO T 2430/11

For the decision, click here [C] (DE)

Key points

• A claim request, wherein one of the alternative features of claim 1 is deleted, is not admitted under Article 13(3) RPBA because it was late filed. In particular, this request was filed after the Statement of Grounds.  
• Auxiliary request 4 was not admitted under A 12(4) RPBA, although filed with the Statement of Ground and already submitted before the OD, because the request had been submitted with the Statement of Grounds without any further argumentation. 

Entscheidungsgründe

1. Die Beschwerden sind zulässig.

2. Hauptantrag, Hilfsantrag 1: Neuheit

[...]

Aus D34 ist das in Anspruch 1 des Hilfsantrags 1 hinzugefügte Merkmal auch implizit bekannt. Deswegen ist D34 neuheitsschädlich für den Gegenstand dieser Ansprüche (Artikel 52 (1) und 54 EPÜ).

3. Hilfsantrag 4A: Zulässigkeit unter Artikel 13(3) VOBK

Der Hilfsantrag 4a wurde erst in der mündlichen Verhandlung vor der Kammer vorgelegt. Gemäß Artikel 13(3) der Verfahrensordnung der Beschwerdekammern (VOBK) werden Änderungen des Vorbringens nach Anberaumung der mündlichen Verhandlung nicht zugelassen, wenn sie Fragen aufwerfen, deren Behandlung der Kammer oder den anderen Beteiligten ohne Verlegung der Verhandlung nicht zuzumuten sind.

T 2201/10 - Bypassing the PSA

EPO T2201/10

For the decision, click here [C] (FR)

EPO Headnote
En d'autres termes, le constat selon lequel une invention telle que revendiquée s'éloigne de la divulgation d'un document de l'état de la technique dans ce que celui-ci a de fondamental, au vu du but poursuivi par cet état de la technique, suffirait en soi à conclure à l'existence d'une activité inventive de ladite invention vis-à-vis de la divulgation par cet état de la technique.

Headnote (translation)
In other words, the finding that an invention as claimed departs from the disclosure of a document of the prior art in that what is fundamental thereof, given the aim of this document, is sufficient in itself to conclude that the invention involves an inventive step vis-à-vis this prior art disclosure.

Key points

• The headnote of this examination appeal decision suggests that the problem-solution-approach can be bypassed by arguing that the invention departs from a prior art document by a feature that is fundamental for that prior art document. 
• However, possibly, the decision must be understood as expressing that it is sufficient to conclude that a claim is not obvious in view of the cited prior art document, if a change of the fundamental nature of the disclosed subject-matter is required, rather than that the existence of an inventive step can be concluded. 
• However, the Board also says that if D1 is taken as closest prior art, the skilled person would have excluded any changes that would have gone against the aim of D1. This seems to express the basic consideration for the proper selection of the closest prior art, namely that it has the same purpose as the claimed invention. 
• As a comment, it will be interesting to see whether this decision will be followed by other Boards.

Motifs de la décision

[...]

5. Requête principale

Activité inventive (article 56 CBE 1973)

5.1 Document D1

5.1.1 La division d'examen a estimé que le document D1 constituait l'état de la technique le plus proche de l'objet de l'invention. La requérante n'a pas contesté cet aspect de la décision.

Tel qu'il ressort de l'analyse qui précède, l'objet de la revendication 1 se distingue de l'assemblage décrit dans D1 en ce qu'il est dépourvu de moyens de mélange du fluide réfrigérant destiné à s'écouler au travers de l'assemblage de combustible nucléaire.

T 2048/10 - Available but not disclosed

EPO T 2048/10

For the decision, click here

Key points

• The claim is directed to a nucleic acid molecule or nucleotide sequence as such, having a particular nucleotide sequence.
• The opponent considers the claim to be not novel in view of document D39, which discloses a partial EST sequence which would anticipate the claimed sequence.
• The Board notes that "D39 only discloses a partial sequence, not annotated and completely uncharacterised. There is thus no reason for the board to depart from the established case law on EST sequences, stating that their mere existence in a large collection of clones is not seen as a form of implicit disclosur" (cf. T 18/09, [10]-[14]).
However, in T 18/19, the Board observed that the DNA sequence disclosed in the EST documents " have several undetermined nucleotides and nucleotides different from those reported for Neutrokine-alpha, as well as sequence frameshifts when compared to the nucleic acid sequence of Neutrokine-alpha. Thus, the sequences of the IMAGE clones actually given in documents D22 or D24 do not anticipate the claimed subject-matter." (at [11]). The Board then considered possibly implicit disclosure of the sequence by the clones (as products) (G1/92). 

Summary of Facts and Submissions

[...] XIII. Claims 1 and 4-5 of the Main Request read as follows:

"1. A nucleic acid molecule or a nucleotide sequence selected from the group consisting of:
(a) a nucleic acid molecule encoding a polypeptide comprising the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 11 or 13;
[...]
(k) a nucleic acid molecule comprising the nucleotide sequence of SEQ ID NO: 6, 10, 12 or PTA-1993;
(l) a nucleotide sequence encoding a polypeptide comprising the amino acid sequence encoded by the DNA contained in PTA-1987 or PTA-1988;
(m) nucleic acid molecule which is complementary to the sequence of the nucleic acid molecule according to any one of (a) to (k); and
(n) a nucleotide sequence encoding an extracellular domain of an amino acid sequence selected from the group consisting of SEQ ID NO: 7, 11 and 13 and a nucleotide sequence encoding an Fc domain of immunoglobulin G.

Reasons for the Decision

[...] Claims 1(k) and 1(m), claim 2

13. According to Example 1 of the patent, Incyte Genomics clone 4616811 belongs to the Incyte Genomics Library ID No. BRAYDIT01. This clone was identified using Incyte Genomics template 252899.8 which, according to Example 1, is a consensus EST sequence, representing a mRNA transcript (cf. page 33, paragraphs [0190]-[0191] of the patent). Document D39 shows a partial EST sequence which, according to the appellant, anticipates claim 1(k) as far as it relates to SEQ ID NO: 6 (the nucleic acid sequence of the BSL2-4616811 clone disclosed in the patent; Figure 3A) and to the deposited PTA-1993.

14. There is however no evidence on file showing that the nucleic acid sequences of the Incyte Genomics clone 4616811 or the Incyte Genomics template 252899.8 (or template 252899.6 cited in Example 1) were identified as encoding a member of the B7 family. As it is the case for many EST sequences, document D39 only discloses a partial sequence, not annotated and completely uncharacterised. There is thus no reason for the board to depart from the established case law on EST sequences, stating that their mere existence in a large collection of clones is not seen as a form of implicit disclosure (cf. T 18/09 of 21 October 2009 from this board in a different composition; see points 10-14 of the Reasons).

15. Contrary to the opposition division, the board decides that the availability of the Incyte Genomics clone and templates is not relevant in the present case since, even if available, their presence in a general library, among other clones and EST sequences, does not represent a clear and direct disclosure of the specific nucleic acid sequence of claim 1(k) and/or the deposited PTA-1993, which is required to be considered for the assessment of novelty (Article 54 EPC).

T 0285/11 - Service Regulations EPO

EPO T 285/11

For the decision, click here [C]

Key points

• This decision refers to the EPO Service Regulations (unusually).
• Two members of the OD had also been members of the ED. Hence, Article 19(2) was violated. The decision under appeal is set aside, the case is remitted and the appeal fee has to be reimbursed.
• The Board does not order that all members of the OD are replaced, as had been requested. This is a matter of discretion of the Board (G 5/91)
• The Board: "The Board has not been presented with any evidence or arguments that the proceedings before the Opposition Division were conducted by the members in an irregular way. Thus, on the facts of this case, the Board concludes that a party would have no objective grounds to suspect that the members of the Opposition Division would not observe the obligation of impartiality under the Service Regulations if called upon to re-hear the case. Hence the Board is not minded to order the remittal of this case to an Opposition Division with a completely new composition."
• As a minor quibble, the right of a party to impartiality of the OD is based on a general principle of law (G 5/91), rather than the Service Regulations. The Service Regulations were not publicly available (at the date the decision was issued, they are since 30.09.2015), can therefore not give rise to rights or obligations of parties, and hence should not be cited in Board decisions. 

Reasons for the Decision

1. The appeal is admissible.

[...]

2. Under Article 19(2) EPC, "[a]n Opposition Division shall consist of three technically qualified examiners, at least two of whom shall not have taken part in the proceedings for grant of the patent to which the opposition relates. An examiner who has taken part in the proceedings for the grant of the European patent may not be the Chairman."

3. In the present case, the first member and the second member of the Opposition Division had taken part as first and second members, respectively, in the proceedings for the grant of the opposed patent when they signed the communication dated 24 May 2006, which established the text of the patent to be granted. For this reason, the composition of the Opposition Division violated Article 19(2), second sentence, EPC.