T 1179/11 - Lacking an essential feature

 Key points

• In this examination appeal (against a refusal issued in 2010), the Board refuses the Main Request under Article 84 EPC because an essential feature is missing in claim 1.
• According to the Board, this follows from the application. The application does not expressly identify the feature as essential.

T 1179/11 - link



Reasons for the Decision
1. Applicable law
It is noted that the revised version of the Convention (EPC 2000) does not apply to European patent applications pending at the time of its entry into force (13 December 2007), unless otherwise provided. In this decision, where Articles or Rules of the former version of the EPC apply, their citation is followed by the indication "1973".[]


 3. Main request
3.1 Admissibility
The main request was submitted with the grounds of appeal. Therefore, it is in the appeal proceedings (Article 12(1)(a) RPBA).


3.2 Clarity
3.2.1 In the Board's judgement, an essential feature of the claimed transponder is missing in claim 1 of the main request. As recited in claim 1, the second circuit, which is coupled to the antenna assembly, is configured to receive a progression of response signals from said antenna assembly, said response signals having an identifying characteristic. There is, however, no mention in the claim of the fact that the progression of response signals results from transmission of a detection signal progression.
According to a preferred embodiment of the invention, the detection of a transponder in the read range of the transponder detector is performed by evaluating the decay rate of each response signal (cf. published application, paragraph [0075], Figures 6A and 6B). In effect, according to this preferred embodiment, the response signals are constituted by the detection signals themselves possibly distorted because of the electromagnetic coupling resulting from the presence in the read range of the transponder detector of the resonating circuit of a transponder.
While it is acknowledged that the description envisages other techniques for detecting the presence of a transponder in the read range (cf. paragraph [0074]), it does not suggest that the response signals could possibly be generated spontaneously, i.e. independently of any detection signals or in response to signals of a different origin. In other terms, the application as a whole is consistent about the fact that the response signals are signals that result from the generation and transmission by the transponder detector of the detection signal progression (cf. Figure 5, blocks 142, 144). It is further emphasized that it is also not disclosed how the identifying characteristic could be determined in the absence of any causal link between detection signals and response signals.


3.2.2 At the oral proceedings, the appellant did not comment on this issue.


3.2.3 It follows that claim 1 of the main request does not fulfill the requirements of Article 84 EPC 1973. Therefore, the main request is not allowable.