T 0461/12 - Opponent not given time for search

Key points

• The Board finds that the OD had committed a substantial procedural violation by admitting into the procedure a request with an added feature based on a figure of the patent. The feature was not emphasized in any way in the patent, so that the opponent could not have expected the amendment. Moreover, the opponent was not given time for a further search. Therefore, the opponent was denied the opportunity to react to the amendment. This forms a substantial procedural violation. 

EPO T 0461/12 - link

Rückzahlung der Beschwerdegebühr - Regel 103 EPÜ

24. Gemäß Regel 103 (1) a) EPÜ wird die Beschwerdegebühr unter anderem dann zurückgezahlt, wenn der Beschwerde stattgegeben wird und die Rückzahlung wegen eines wesentlichen Verfahrensmangels der Billigkeit entspricht.

25. Der Antrag der Beschwerdeführerin [opponent] auf Aufhebung der Entscheidung und Widerruf des Patents hat aus den oben dargelegten Gründen Erfolg, so dass zu prüfen ist, ob auch die zweite Bedingung für die Rückzahlung, nämlich das Vorliegen eines wesentlichen Verfahrensmangels, erfüllt ist.

26. In Vorbereitung der mündlichen Verhandlung vor der Einspruchsabteilung hatte die Beschwerdegegnerin [proprietor] unter anderem das in der Beschreibung offenbarte Mantel-Merkmal in Anspruch 1 aufgenommen, um seinen Gegenstand vom im Verfahren befindlichen Stand der Technik abzugrenzen. Zu dieser Änderung hat die Beschwerdeführerin vor der mündlichen Verhandlung schriftlich Stellung genommen (Schreiben vom 19. Oktober 2011, Übergang der Seiten 2 und 3).

T 1988/12 - Plant product-by-process claim

Key points

• In this examination appeal, a claim for a plant solely defined as obtainable by two (alternative) processes was found to be not clear.
• " In the case of claims to a product drafted in a product-by-process style, the requirement of Article 84 EPC that the claims be clear has the aim of ensuring that the skilled person is able to determine, either from the claim alone, or by construction of the claim in the light of the description, or by construction in the light of the skilled person's common general knowledge, which identifiable and unambiguous technical features are imparted to the product by the process through which it is defined." 
• Quite interesting, the Board finds that it is not enough that a skilled person can determine whether a given product is infringing or not by analyzing the product.
• " While the board agrees that Article 84 EPC does not prescribe any particular way of meeting its requirement for clarity, it cannot agree that the claim is necessarily "clear if a skilled person (ie a plant breeder) can determine whether or not a candidate plant falls within its terms". Such an approach requires that to understand the claim, the skilled person be in possession of a candidate plant []. In the board's view, the suggestion that the skilled person has to rely on an analysis of a potentially infringing product to know what the subject-matter for which protection is sought actually is, runs counter to the purpose of Article 84 EPC (see point 6., above). 
• The Board furthermore finds that the genetic information in the genome of the claimed plants is unknown, and that "thus at least one of the characterising technical features imparted to the claimed plants by the process is unknown and claim 1 is therefore considered as unclear." 
• As a comment, the allowed claims in the Tomatoes III case did not recite genetic information, but were not defined as process-by-process claims either.

EPO T 1988/12 - link

IV. Claim 1 of the main request and of auxiliary requests 1 and 2 reads as follows:

"1. A progeny plant obtainable by a method comprising:

(a) crossing a plant that
       (i) has a spring growth habit and is of a line deposited as ATCC accession number PTA-6776, PTA-6779, PTA-6777, PTA-6781, PTA-6780, or PTA 6778; or as NCIMB accession number 41388, 41389, 41390, or 41391; or
      (ii) has a winter growth habit and is of a line deposited as NCIMB accession number 41392, 41393, 41394, 41395, 41396, 41397, or number 41398;
with another Brassica plant to yield seed;
(b) growing the Brassica seed of step (a) to yield a derived plant; and
(c) optionally repeating the crossing and growing of steps (a) and (b) for successive generations to produce further plants derived from said Brassica plant;

or (a) producing progeny of a plant that
              (i) has a spring growth habit and is of a line deposited as ATCC accession number PTA-6776, PTA-6779, or PTA-6777; or as NCIMB accession number 41388 or 41389; or
              (ii) has a winter growth habit and is of a line deposited as NCIMB accession number 41392, 41393, 41394, 41395, 41396, 41397, or number 41398
by doubled haploidy;
and (d) selecting a descendent plant, wherein (a) a solid component of the seed of the progeny plant comprises a glucosinolate level of less than 30 mymoles per gram of oil-free solid; (b) oil of the seed of the progeny plant comprises less than 2% erucic acid; (c) said progeny plant has a 50% flowering time of between about 30 to 90 days; and (d) said progeny are representative of a population having an SSDI % score which is less than about 60% of the SSDI% score,  in the case of a spring growth habit, of Pioneer Hi-Bred variety 46A65 or 46A76 or of the mean SSDI% score of the two varieties, or in the case of a winter growth habit, of the variety Columbus, or of the variety Express, or of the mean SSDI% score of the two varieties, under the same environmental and disease conditions in the field."

T 1939/13 - Deciding on the wrong request

Key points

• In this examination appeal, the requests had been replaced multiple times during the oral proceedings. The written decision of the Examining Division is not directed to the last version of the requests, and includes the wording of the independent claims of some earlier version of the requests, filed before the oral proceedings. The Board decides that this forms a substantial procedural violation. 
• " In summary, the Examining Division has violated Article 113(2) EPC by deciding on a version of the first auxiliary request that was no longer approved by the applicant and by not deciding on the text of the first auxiliary request submitted by the applicant during the oral proceedings." 
• The Board does not remit the case, but examines the requests, and decides that they are not allowable.

EPO T 1939/13 - link

Reasons for the Decision

1. The appeal complies with the provisions referred to in Rule 101 EPC and is therefore admissible.

2. The decision under appeal

2.1 In preparation for the oral proceedings before the Examining Division, with a letter dated 8 January 2013 the applicant filed a main request, a first auxiliary request and a second auxiliary request. According to the minutes of the oral proceedings held on 8 February 2013, the applicant replaced its first auxiliary request with an amended first auxiliary request filed at 10:15 and replaced its second auxiliary request, after two intermediate amendments (at 10:35 and 10:50), with an amended second auxiliary request filed at 13:17. Annexed to the minutes of the oral proceedings are one page with claims 1 to 5 of the amended first auxiliary request filed at 10:15 and further pages containing the three amended versions of claims 1 to 21 of the second auxiliary request (versions of 10:35, 10:50 and 13:17). It is indicated on EPO Form 2009.2, which forms part of the minutes, that the other pages of the first auxiliary request are "as in main request".

2.2 The contested decision makes mention of the requests filed by the appellant with the letter of 8 January 2013 but is silent on the amendments made in the course of the oral proceedings. Under the heading "Claims on file", it gives the text of independent apparatus claim 1 of each of "The Main Request", "The First Auxiliary Request" and "The Second Auxiliary Request". It further mentions that independent claim 15 of the main request, independent claim 14 of the first auxiliary request and independent claim 14 of the second auxiliary request define the corresponding methods. No further indication of the application documents on which the decision is based is given.

2.3 The text of claim 1 of "The Main Request" corresponds to the text of claim 1 of the main request filed with the letter of 8 January 2013. That request also includes an independent method claim 15.

T 0223/14 - Not filing the requests before OD

Key points

• In this case, the patent proprietor had expressly refrained from filing further auxiliary requests before the OD during the OP, even while expressly invited to do so by the OD in view of the claims 1 of the then pending request being not novel. The patent proprietor had filed new requests with its Statement of ground.
• The Board does not admit these requests under Article 12(4) RPBA. The patent proprietor could clearly have filed them during the proceedings before the OD, even more so because the OD had indicated that it would examine such further requests.

EPO T 0223/14 - link

2. Zulässigkeit der Anträge der Beschwerdeführerin ins Verfahren

2.1 Es ist unbestritten, dass sich die Anspruchssätze gemäß den von der Beschwerdeführerin eingereichten Anträgen alle von denen unterscheiden, die der Einspruchsabteilung vorgelegen haben.

Die Zulassung dieser neu eingereichten Anträge liegt nach Artikel 12(4) VOBK im Ermessen der Kammer.

T 1986/14 - Article 123(2) and digits

Key points

• A mention of an amount " ranging from about 50.00% to about 90.00% by weight" in the application as filed does not provide basis for the feature that the amount is of "from 50% to 90% by weight. This is due to difference in accuracy between 50% and 50.00%.

EPO T 1986/14 - link

Reasons for the Decision

1. The appeal is admissible.

Amendments:

2. Main request

2.1 Claim 6 of the main request was amended by including the features "glycerin in an amount ranging from 50% to 90% by weight of the composition" and "sorbitol in at least 0.1% by weight of the composition".

2.2 Glycerin in an amount ranging from 50% to 90% by weight of the composition

The appellant argued that the amount of glycerin in claim 6 found a basis in the passage on page 9, lines 17-19, of the application as originally filed, which read "glycerin moisturizer can be present individually in an amount ranging from about 50.00% to about 90.00% by weight".

It was undisputed that 50% and 50.00% differ in their accuracy. For this reason, 50.00%/90.00%, on their own, cannot not provide a basis for the features 50% or 90%.

The applicant argued, however, that the use of the term "about" in the passage mentioned above indicated that it was not intended to restrict the claimed amount to ranges defined by end-points with four significant figures.

The feature "about 50.00% to about 90.00%" discloses a range with two end-points, namely 50.00% and 90.00%, and an area of undefined boundaries around them. No other end-point, such as 50% or 50.0%, is either implicitly or explicitly disclosed. For this reason, the passage cited cannot provide a basis for the aforementioned feature.

T 1152/14 - No OP before OD, reaction time

Key points

• The patent proprietor forgets to request oral proceedings with its response to the opposition, and the OD revokes the patent without oral proceedings, and without issuing an advance communication. After the response of the patent proprietor, the opponent had filed a further document (an expert declaration). This was forwarded to the patent proprietor, without an invitation to comment or setting a time limit. The OD revokes the patent three months after forwarding the document to the patent proprietor. The Board finds that the patent proprietor was given enough time to file a response to the document (namely more than 3 months) and that therefore there was no violation of the right to be heard. 
• In fact, a period of two months is generally sufficient, according to the Board.

EPO T 1152/14 -  link

Entscheidungsgründe

1. Rechtliches Gehör im Einspruchsverfahren

1.1 Gemäß Artikel 113(1) EPÜ dürfen Entscheidungen des Europäischen Patentamts nur auf Gründe gestützt werden, zu denen sich die Beteiligten äußern konnten. Eine Verletzung des rechtlichen Gehörs nach Artikel 113(1) EPÜ gilt als wesentlicher Verfahrens­mangel (vgl. Rechtsprechung der Beschwerdekammern des Europäischen Patentamts, achte Auflage 2016, IV.E.7.4.2 und IV.E.8.4.3).

1.2 Die Beschwerdeführerin hat in diesem Zusammenhang geltend gemacht, die Einspruchsabteilung habe im Anschluss an die Eingabe der Einsprechenden vom 9. Dezember 2013 über den Einspruch entschieden, ohne die Beschwerdeführerin zu einer Stellungnahme aufzufordern oder zumindest einen angemessenen Zeitraum ab Zustellung des Schriftsatzes der Einsprechenden abzuwarten, und sie habe bei ihrer Beschlussfassung Erkenntnisse aus der besagten Eingabe, nämlich aus dem Sachverständigengutachten E33, verwertet. Dies stelle eine Verletzung des rechtlichen Gehörs der Beschwerde­führerin und damit einen wesentlichen Verfahrensmangel des erstinstanzlichen Verfahrens dar.

T 1848/12 - Should have presented earlier

Key points

• The Board notes, about Article 12(4) RPBA, that "could" have been presented earlier should be understood as "should have been presented" during the first instance proceedings.
• The Board also explains that Article 12(4) RPBA reflects that " appeal proceedings, which are largely determined by the factual and legal scope of the preceding proceedings, are not about bringing an entirely fresh case to the board. This means that an appellant is not at liberty to bring about the shifting of its case to the appeal proceedings as it pleases, and so compel the board either to give a first ruling on the critical issues or to remit the case to the opposition division."
• The Board raises an added subject-matter objection to an amendment in an Auxiliary Request that was not raised by the opponent, but noted by the OD. The patent proprietor protests, to no avail. The Board notes that " the board is required to review the impugned decision as a whole, i.e. including [the point about added subject-matter], and pursuant to Article 111(1) EPC may exercise the power of the opposition division. According to the established case law, the board has wide powers to consider all possible objections under the EPC against the first auxiliary request, since the amendments must be examined fully for compatibility with the EPC []." .

EPO T 1848/12 - link

1.2 Documents D17 to D28

1.2.1 Documents D17 to D28 were filed for the first time with appellant II's statement setting out the grounds of appeal.

1.2.2 The board considers that appeal proceedings, which are largely determined by the factual and legal scope of the preceding proceedings, are not about bringing an entirely fresh case to the board. This means that an appellant is not at liberty to bring about the shifting of its case to the appeal proceedings as it pleases, and so compel the board either to give a first ruling on the critical issues or to remit the case to the opposition division. Conceding such freedom to an appellant would run counter to orderly and efficient opposition-appeal proceedings. In effect, it would allow a kind of "forum shopping" which would jeopardise the proper distribution of functions between the departments of first instance and the boards of appeal and would be unacceptable for procedural economy generally (G 9/91, OJ EPO 1993, 408, Reasons 6; T 1705/07 of 10 June 2010, not published in OJ EPO, Reasons 8.4; T 1067/08 of 10 February 2011, not published in OJ EPO, Reasons 7.1 to 7.2).

T 1523/11 - Skilled person and inventive step

Key points

• In this examination appeal, the Board adds further evidence of the publication date of the document used as closest prior art of its own motion (" In the EPO's database, the Board has located document D13, which is another copy of the same document [D1]." 
• In connection with inventive step, the Board finds that the technical field of the skilled person can be defined by the problem addressed.
• " According to the appellant, the skilled person starting from document D1 would not look for a solution to this problem in the technical field of database searching. The Board considers, however, that if the technical problem relates to index structures for searches, then the skilled person on the basis of whose knowledge and ability the obviousness of the solution is to be assessed is a person with knowledge of index structures, i.e. a person skilled in the field of database management systems. " 

EPO T 1523/11 - link

3. Document D1

3.1 Document D1 bears the heading "SP003 V1.3 part B - System issues" but mentions neither an author nor a date. The Examining Division cited it as "1st Draft of Metadata Specification SP003v1.3", authored by "EVAIN J P" and published on 11 June 2002. It apparently assumed that it corresponded to the document cited in the application as disclosing a single key index structure (see point 2.2 above).

3.2 In the EPO's database, the Board has located document D13, which is another copy of the same document. Its bibliographic details suggest that document D1/D13 is indeed the document cited in the application and was published in June 2002 in connection with the 17th TV-Anytime Forum meeting (see document D17). These details are consistent with the information on "SP003v13" given on page 2 of document D14, which reports on the meeting.

3.3 The Board further notes that document D18 confirms that TV-Anytime Forum specifications at all stages of their development have been publicly available from the Internet address "ftp://tva:tva@ftp.bbc.co.uk/Specifications/" (page 2, section "Relevant ancillary documentation"). The Board notes that document D17 mentions the same address.

3.4 In view of these findings, the Board considers the content of document D1 to be part of the prior art under Article 54(2) EPC. The appellant has not contested this and in its letter of 16 December 2016 in fact stressed that it accepts the document's publication date to be 11 June 2002.

T 2508/13 - Reintroducing requests

Key points

• The present decision illustrates once more that requests withdrawn before the Examining Division (during oral proceedings, after a negative opinion on inventive step) can not be presented again before the Board, also not if the requests are additionally a bit broadened. The requests are not admitted.
• " The board considers that the applicant cannot simply withdraw requests when it believes that the examining division does not correctly assess the inventive step of the claimed subject-matter and later on reinstate these or substantially similar requests during appeal proceedings. Such behaviour constitutes "forum shopping", which is not the purpose of appeal proceedings" 

EPO T 2508/13  - link

3. Inadmissible requests

According to Article 12(4) RPBA the board may hold inadmissible facts, evidence or requests which could have been presented in the first-instance proceedings.

In the present case, the applicant, by letter of 10 May 2013, had filed a main request and an auxiliary request during the examination procedure. These requests were discussed during oral proceedings before the examining division. After the discussion of these requests, the examining division informed the applicant that an inventive step could not be acknowledged. The applicant declined to file a new request and subsequently withdrew these requests (see Minutes of the oral proceedings of 18 June 2013, page 1, paragraphs 9 and 11). Only one request was maintained, on which the decision of the examining division was based.

With the statement of grounds of appeal, the appellant filed two auxiliary requests that are essentially similar, but broader in scope than the requests withdrawn before the examining division.

T 0158/13 - Unallowable therapeutic use claim

Key points

• The claim at issue for a " non-therapeutic use of a stimulative perfume composition"  was held to violate Article 53(c) EPC, because the recited purpose of "for releasing persons from a physiological mental condition of sleepiness, sense of fatigue and inactivity in daily life, and for refreshing and activating their mental condition" did not allow for a "clear and unambiguous distinction" with a medical use. The feature "non-therapeutic"  does not help. 

EPO T 0158/13 - link

The wording of independent claims 1 and 6 of the 2nd auxiliary request on which the decision under appeal was based read as follows:

"1. A non-therapeutic use of a stimulative perfume composition including 0.01 wt% to 50 wt% anisaldehyde for releasing persons from a physiological mental condition of sleepiness, sense of fatigue and inactivity in daily life, and for refreshing and activating their mental condition, wherein said stimulative perfume composition further includes a perfume compound selected from the group consisting of cinnamic aldehyde, eugenol, carvone and heliotropin."
"6. A stimulative perfume composition comprising anisaldehyde as a stimulative agent and a perfume component selected from the group consisting of pepper, cardamom and nutmeg."

4. Article 53(c) EPC

4.1 In the decision under appeal the Opposition Division found that the subject-matter of claims 1 and 5 of the then pending 2**(nd)auxiliary request met the requirements of Article 53(c) EPC, since it was possible to clearly distinguish between a non-therapeutic and a therapeutic use of the stimulative perfume. The basic argument was that it was possible to distinguish between persons that only had little sleep and those who suffered from chronic fatigue or depression, and consequently the non-therapeutic use arose from a proper selection of persons on which the stimulative perfume was used.

4.2 However, in the statement setting out the grounds for appeal the Appellant pointed out that it was not possible to distinguish between a therapeutic or non-therapeutic use of the stimulative perfume composition, since the way of administering the composition is the same for a therapeutic and a non-therapeutic use. Moreover, the claimed use covered at least some mental conditions, such as sleepiness, that might or might not be of a pathological nature.

4.3 According to the case law of the Boards of appeal a clear distinction between a therapeutic and a non-therapeutic use is possible, if the group of persons treated can be clearly identified as healthy or as suffering from a pathological condition (see e.g. T 469/94, not published in the OJ EPO, point 4.4 of the reasons).

4.4 In the present case the claims were directed to the non-therapeutic use of a stimulative perfume composition "for releasing persons from a physiological mental condition of sleepiness, sense of fatigue and inactivity in daily life, and for refreshing and activating their mental condition". At least the sleepiness or inactivity in daily life may not only be a physiological condition, but may also arise from a pathological condition. For example, sleepiness or inactivity in daily life may be an early sign of a depression which cannot be clearly distinguished from a non-pathological condition.

Without a clear and unambiguous distinction between a physiological and a pathological nature of a persons mental condition a clear distinction between therapeutic and non-therapeutic use is also impossible. The mere reference to the claimed use being a "non-therapeutic" use does not, therefore, exclude the therapeutic use.

Even with the wording of the claim, which calls the claimed composition a "perfume" composition a therapeutic use is not excluded, since the patent in suit demonstrated that the administration of the perfume composition leads to a clearly measurable stimulative effect on the brain, as can be determined by an increase of the CNV value.

Since for the use for some of the claimed mental conditions a clear distinction between therapeutic and non-therapeutic use cannot be made the subject-matter of claims 1 and 5 does not fulfil the requirements of Article 53(c) EPC.

4.5 Consequently, the Respondent's main request, which was the maintenance of the patent in suit on the basis of claims 1 to 6 according to the 2**(nd)auxiliary request on which the decision under appeal was based, is not allowable.

T 0327/15 - Procedural violation

Key points

• Decision from the stock
• " The ground for opposition according to Article 100(b) EPC was never withdrawn by the appellant (opponent). [] The Opposition Division, however, did not deal with that ground in the reasons for the decision. It follows that the lack of reasoning concerning the ground for opposition according to Article 100(b) EPC in the impugned decision is in breach of Rule 111(2) EPC and Article 113(1) EPC. This constitutes a substantial procedural violation." 

EPO T 0327/15 - link

Reasons for the Decision

1. The appeal is admissible.

2. The invention relates to a haemodialyser used in a haemodialysis system for performing a haemodialysis treatment on a patient who has lost his kidney function.

A haemodialyser is the component in which the extraction of waste products from the blood of the patient undergoing the treatment takes place. Typically, it comprises two compartments separated by a dialysis membrane: a blood-side compartment to be filled by the blood of the patient circulating in the system and a dialysate-side compartment. During treatment waste products will diffuse through the dialysis membrane from the blood-side compartment into the dialysate-side compartment, and some dialysate will diffuse in the opposite direction, to achieve an electrolyte balance in the treated blood. The treated blood is then re-infused into the patient.

T 0057/12 - Reformatio in peius and scope

Key points

• Decision is from the stock.
• The Board applies G 1/99 to determine whether a claim can be broadened in appeal, with only the opponent appealing, as exception to the prohibition of reformatio in peius. 
• In the Auxiliary Request at issue, the feature of the Main Request found unclear by the Board was deleted. The feature being deemed unclear, can in principle allow for such exception. However, the Board finds that the feature could also have been clarified by adding one or more restricting features to the claims (the first step of G 1/99), such that deleting the feature is not allowable under G 1/99.
• The Board also considers if the added feature - a further element of the claimed composite - would result in extension of the scope of protection as a matter of indirect infringement.

EPO T 0057/12 - link

I. Die Beschwerde der Einsprechenden (Beschwerdeführerin) richtet sich gegen die Zwischenentscheidung der Einspruchsabteilung, in der festgestellt wurde, dass unter Berücksichtigung der im Einspruchsverfahren vorgenommen Änderungen das europäische Patent mit der Nummer 1 579 779 und die Erfindung, die es zum Gegenstand hat, den Erfordernissen des EPÜ genügen.


Entscheidungsgründe

4. Hilfsantrag 1 - Zulassung

4.1 Dieser Hilfsantrag wurde während der mündlichen Verhandlung vorgelegt und stellt somit eine Änderung des Vorbringens der Beschwerdeführerin dar (Artikel 13(1) VOBK). Die Zulassung in das Verfahren liegt damit im Ermessen der Kammer wie bereits unter Punkt 1.1 ausgeführt.

4.2 In Anspruch 1 wurde das (im Hauptantrag) als unklar erachtete Merkmal gestrichen. Die weiteren Änderungen betreffen die Aufnahme der Merkmale der ursprünglich eingereichten (und erteilten) abhängigen Ansprüche 2, 8 und 10.

4.3 Nach Auffassung der Beschwerdegegnerin hätte das gestrichene Merkmal lediglich erläuternden Charakter und es würde daher kein technisches Merkmal entfallen. Eine Erweiterung gemäß Artikel 123(3) EPÜ finde daher nicht statt. Zudem würde die Aufnahme der Unteransprüche 2, 3 und 5 funktionelle Merkmale in den Anspruch 1 bringen, die funktionell das gestrichene Merkmal ersetzen könnten.

4.4 Dieser Auffassung kann die Kammer nicht folgen. Das gestrichene Merkmal mag durchaus erläuternden Charakter aufweisen. Es weist jedoch in technischer Hinsicht eindeutig darauf hin, in welchen Bereichen das Grundgelege zur Verankerung mit den Kletthaken zur Verfügung steht. Dies wird in keinem anderen Merkmal des Anspruchs 1 ausgedrückt. Daher hat dieses Merkmal Anteil am technischen Inhalt des Anspruchs und kann nicht ersatzlos entfallen. Dieser Anteil am technischen Inhalt des Anspruchs wird auch nicht durch die Aufnahme der Merkmale der Unteransprüche kompensiert. Die zusätzlich aufgenommenen Merkmale der Unteransprüche 2, 3 und 5 können das gestrichene Merkmal weder erläutern noch direkt oder indirekt klarstellen. Sie beziehen sich lediglich auf die Eigenschaften der Trägerfolie, des textilen Substrats, sowie deren Verbindung. Merkmale oder Eigenschaften der Kletthaken oder deren Verankerung können davon nicht abgeleitet werden.

4.5 Grundsätzlich ist das Streichen eines in der Zwischenentscheidung der Einspruchsabteilung der erteilten Fassung des Anspruchs 1 zugefügten Merkmals nur unter bestimmten Voraussetzungen möglich (G1/99). Es ist zu prüfen, ob die in G1/99 angeführten Voraussetzungen zutreffen.

4.6 G1/99 legt im Leitsatz fest, dass

"Grundsätzlich muss ein geänderter Anspruch, durch den der Einsprechende und alleinige Beschwerdeführer schlechter gestellt würde als ohne die Beschwerde, zurückgewiesen werden. Von diesem Grundsatz kann jedoch ausnahmsweise abgewichen werden, um einen im Beschwerdeverfahren vom Einsprechenden/Beschwerdeführer oder von der Kammer erhobenen Einwand auszuräumen, wenn andernfalls das in geändertem Umfang aufrechterhaltene Patent als unmittelbare Folge einer unzulässigen Änderung, die die Einspruchsabteilung in ihrer Zwischenentscheidung für gewährbar erachtet hatte, widerrufen müsste.
Unter diesen Umständen kann dem Patentinhaber/Beschwerdegegner zur Beseitigung des Mangels gestattet werden, folgendes zu beantragen:
- in erster Linie eine Änderung, durch die ein oder mehrere ursprünglich offenbarte Merkmale aufgenommen werden, die den Schutzbereich des Patents in der aufrechterhaltenen Fassung einschränken;
- falls eine solche Beschränkung nicht möglich ist, eine Änderung, durch die ein oder mehrere ursprünglich offenbarte Merkmale aufgenommen werden, die den Schutzbereich des Patents in der aufrechterhaltenen Fassung erweitern, ohne jedoch gegen Artikel 123(3) EPÜ zu verstoßen;
- erst wenn solche Änderungen nicht möglich sind, die Streichung der unzulässigen Änderung, sofern nicht gegen Artikel 123(3) EPÜ verstoßen wird."

4.7 Demzufolge ist in erster Linie eine Änderung in Betracht zu ziehen, durch die ein oder mehrere ursprünglich offenbarte Merkmale aufgenommen werden, die den Schutzbereich des Patents in der aufrechterhaltenen Fassung einschränken. Diese Möglichkeit besteht im vorliegenden Fall.

4.8 Der Schutzbereich des Anspruchs 1 könnte eingeschränkt werden, indem der Verbundstoff in nähere Beziehung zu den Kletthaken gebracht würde. Dies wäre dadurch möglich, dass nicht der Verbundstoff, sondern der gesamte Klettverschluss, bzw. Windelverschluss beansprucht würde. In diesem Fall wäre das Argument der Beschwerdegegnerin - welches in Bezug auf den Hauptantrag vorgebracht wurde - zutreffend, dass - wenn auch indirekt - klargestellt wäre, dass die ("alle") Kletthaken sowohl mit den oberflächlichen Schlaufen als auch mit den Schlaufen des Grundgeleges verankerbar seien, und daher alle Kletthaken geeignet wären, "tief" in den Verbundstoff (bis zum Grundgelege) einzugreifen. In diesem Fall würde die Einschränkung darin bestehen, dass nur exakt eine Art von Kletthaken im Klettverschluss vorliegen würde.

4.9 Da diese Möglichkeit der Änderung nicht ausgeschöpft wurde, kann der Hilfsantrag 1 nicht zugelassen werden. Die weiteren Optionen, welche in G1/99 genannt sind, kommen nicht in Frage solange diese erste Option nicht ausgeschöpft wurde. Sie sind daher hier nicht relevant.

4.10 Dem Argument der Beschwerdegegnerin, dass eine Aufnahme von Merkmalen des zweiten Teils des Klettverschlusses eine Erweiterung des Schutzbereiches bedeuten würde (d.h. gegen die Aufforderung der G1/99), kann nicht gefolgt werden. Auf "Kletthaken" ist bereits in Anspruch 1 Bezug genommen. Eine konkrete Eignung der Größe der Schlaufen und der Grundgelege durch Aufnahme von Haken in Anspruch 1 kann nur als eine Einschränkung des Schutzbereichs verstanden werden. Durch diese Einschränkung sind nur textile Substrate beansprucht, die mit den Haken zusammenwirken, die auf der anderen Seite des Klettverschlusses vorhanden sind - statt nur irgendwelche unbestimmte Haken.

4.11 Es mag zwar richtig sein, wie von der Beschwerdegegnerin vorgetragen, dass der entsprechende Hakenteil des Verschlusses auch jetzt unter den Anspruch fällt. Dies ist jedoch nur in Verbindung mit dem textilen Substrat des Klettverschlusses beansprucht, der weiter eingeschränkt wurde. Der Auffassung, dass der Schutzbereich sich dadurch erweitert hat, schließt sich die Kammer daher nicht an.

4.12 Das Argument der Beschwerdegegnerin, dass ein Verletzungsgegenstand durch eine mittelbare Verletzung vorliegen würde, die nicht beim erteilten Anspruch vorlag, überzeugt nicht. Es wurde nicht überzeugend dargelegt, dass eine (neue) mittelbare Verletzung vorliegen würde. Zudem funktioniert das definierte Substrat immer als Teil eines ein- oder mehrteiligen Klettverschlusses. Die Lieferung eines unter den erteilten Anspruch 1 geschützten Substrates ohne einen zweiten Teil des Klettverschlusses (oder ohne das zugehörige Objekt) würde deswegen gleichermaßen zu einer mittelbaren Verletzung führen.

4.13 Es würde sich auch nicht um einen Wechsel der Anspruchskategorie handeln, wie etwa dem Wechsel von einem beanspruchten Gegenstand zu einem beanspruchten Verfahren. Ganz im Gegenteil, durch eine Einschränkung des Verbundstoffes, derzufolge nur definierte "geeignete" Kletthaken Teil des Klettverschlusses sein könnten, würde gerade die Möglichkeit der mittelbaren Verletzung wesentlich eingeschränkt. Eine Erweiterung des Schutzbereiches würde somit im vorliegenden Fall nicht erfolgen, und Artikel 123(3) EPÜ wäre nicht verletzt.

4.14 Der vorliegende Gegenstand unterscheidet sich genau durch die Beeinflussung bzw. Wechselwirkung von Verbundstoff/Kletthaken und zu verschließendem Objekt vom Sachverhalt in den in der Rechtsprechung der Beschwerdekammern (7. Auflage 2013, II.E.2.1.3) diesbezüglich zitierten Entscheidungen.

T 1898/07 betraf den Fall, dass es kein Merkmal oder keine Funktion gab, welche eine Wechselwirkung zwischen Packung und flüssiger Zusammensetzung der zu verpackenden Zubereitung hergestellt hätten. Daher hat die Kammer entschieden, dass eine Erweiterung des Schutzbereiches bei einer derartigen Anspruchsformulierung zutraf.

Das galt auch für die Sachlage in T 352/04, welche ein Haarbehandlungsmittel betraf, wobei das zusätzliche Merkmal der zu verwendenden Sprühvorrichtung in keinem Zusammenhang mit der flüssigen Zusammensetzung des Haarbehandlungsmittels stand.

T 579/01 bezog sich auf einen lebenden Organismus, eine Pflanze, ausgehend von Zellen in einer Pflanze, wobei die Kammer zu dem Schluss kam, dass eine Pflanze immer aus Zellen besteht. Diese Thematik ist daher grundverschieden vom vorliegenden Fall.

4.15 Da ein geänderter Antrag prima facie und daher auch im Sinne von G1/99 gewährbar sein sollte, wurde dieser Antrag nicht zum Verfahren zugelassen (Artikel 13(1) VOBK).

T 1637/13 - Need to ask for more time

Key points

• The decision from the stock.
• If a patent proprietor needs more time during the first instance oral proceedings to address new objections, he needs to ask for it. Otherwise, he can not later in appeal argue that there was a violation of the right to be heard.

T 1637/13 - link

Reasons for the Decision

2. (...) The further contention that the Patentee was not prepared to deal with the additional objection raised by the Opposition Division is unjustified and unfounded, for the Patentee was given time at least twice during oral proceedings (see minutes, points 3.1.4, 3.1.6) to prepare and formulate auxiliary requests I and II. If the Patentee considered that it was nevertheless not possible to adequately react to the objections, then it should either have asked for more time or for an adjournment of the oral proceedings. However it can be deduced neither from the impugned decision nor from the minutes that such requests were submitted. Hence it cannot be concluded that the Patentee's right to be heard was violated.

T 0648/15 - Reformatio in peius and clarity

Key points

• In this opposition appeal, the OD had maintained the patent in amended form according to the Main Request of the patentee. The opponent appealed, and the Board found the amendments of the Main Request to cause a lack of a clarity. The Board finds that in such case, the rules of G 1/99 regarding the exceptions to the prohibition of reformatio in peius apply.
• " According to G 1/99, in the first place, a non-appealing patentee is essentially bound to defending the form of the patent as found allowable by the opposition division, or to adopt fallback positions from that. The form of the patent as found allowable by the opposition division being held to lack clarity by the Board, the exceptions to the prohibition of reformatio in peius in G1/99 are applicable in regard to any further request filed."
• As to the three options specified in G1/99, the Board observes that "the three options given in G 1/99 however do not apply independently of one another and cannot be chosen ad libitum. Indeed, they are set up in a way to indicate a particular sequence of options for overcoming the deficiency presented by a claim. The first option concerns a limitation of the scope of the claim and is indicated in the wording of the headnote of G 1/99 as applying "in the first place" with the meaning that - should this option exist, this first option has to be chosen. The second and third options, in a consecutive manner, should only be considered when the first option is not applicable. However, the Board is convinced that in the current case, the first option is applicable - an amendment introducing one or more originally disclosed features which limit the scope of the patent as amended and which clarify the relationship between the covering surface, the inflatable member and the elastic insert - and accordingly has to be chosen. Accordingly, already for this reason the second and third options given in G 1/99 are not applicable options here. Indeed, in several embodiments both shown and described, the garment comprises an elastic insert located at and forming the outer periphery of the entire cover member in which it is comprised, so as to form a closed loop".
• As a comment, in this kind of cases it can happen that the opponent points to ways of resolving the clarity issues (by restricting to very limited embodiments in the description) whereas the patent proprietor may want to come up with reasons why restricting in such way would not help. The roles of the parties are almost reversed then.

EPO T 0648/15 - link

Reasons for the Decision

2. Main Request - Amendments - Clarity

2.1 Claim 1 has been amended, compared to the form as granted, inter alia by adding the characterizing feature:

[]

2.18 Hence, claim 1 lacks clarity and the main request is not allowable (Article 84 EPC).

3. Right to be heard - Applicability of G 1/99 concerning auxiliary requests

3.1 Concerning the request for acceleration of the proceedings, the Board notes that the acceleration of the proceedings is a matter of internal organisation entirely for the Board to decide upon. This possibility exists in order for example to circumvent the drawbacks which would result for a case if it were to be treated in the chronological order of the entering appeals. The Board may accelerate any case, even without a request for acceleration, if it finds it appropriate for particular reasons. In the present case however there was a specific request for acceleration made by one of the parties. Even if it were the case, as argued by the respondent, that it had not become aware of the request for acceleration, the Board had anyway set the oral proceedings, which thus made the respondent fully aware of the timetable which de facto was an acceleration in reaction to the request for acceleration which had been filed together with copies of the lawsuit underlying it. Nevertheless, the decision to accelerate did not introduce any exceptional procedural step and is in full compliance with Articles 113 EPC and 12 RPBA. This means that per se the acceleration of the proceedings, as a mere administrative measure, cannot infringe the right to be heard. The respondent anyway does not have any right to delay the case.

T 2199/11 - Patent acquired by opponent

Key point

• The Board notes that the patent was said to have been acquired by Opponent 1, but that did not affect the admissibility of the appeal of Opponent 2, because the transfer of the patent had not effect under Rule 22(3) for lack of evidentiary documents being filed. 
• As a comment, Rule 22 of course also requires payment of an administrative fee, which was neither the case. Moreover, the immediate effect of the transfer, even if registered, on admissibility of the appeal is not so clear to me. 

EPO T 2199/11 -  link

Reasons for the Decision

1. The appeal [of Opponent 2] is admissible. The alleged acquisition of the opposed patent by former opponent 1 (Gemalto SA) (see point VI above) has no effect on the present appeal proceedings. Pursuant to Rule 20(3) in conjunction with Rule 61 EPC 1973 (now Rule 22(3) EPC and Rule 85 EPC, respectively), a transfer of a European patent made during opposition appeal proceedings shall have effect vis-à-vis the EPO only when and to the extent documents satisfying the EPO that the transfer has taken place have been produced. However, no documents in support of a transfer of the opposed patent to former opponent 1 (Gemalto SA) have been produced.

T 0711/13 - Not rebutting in opposition

Key points

• " The respondent explicitly decided to not substantiate his opinion that claim 1 according to auxiliary request 7g did not meet the requirements of the EPC. in consequence, the board would have to investigate on its own the grounds for which the respondent argues that the subject-matter claimed in auxiliary request 7g did not meet the requirements of the EPC. The appeal procedure is a judicial procedure [], in contrast to the purely administrative character of the opposition procedure. Since the appeal procedure is less investigative, the board does not further investigate the unsubstantiated objections of the respondent." 
• The patent is maintained on the basis of the Auxiliary request 7g.

EPO T 0711/13 - link 

9. Auxiliary request 7g

9.1 Admissibility

[] The respondent [opponent] did not object to the admissibility of this request. In consequence, the board sees no reason to not admit this request into the proceedings.

9.2 Allowability

The respondent explicitly decided to not substantiate his opinion that claim 1 according to auxiliary request 7g did not meet the requirements of the EPC.

In consequence, the board would have to investigate on its own the grounds for which the respondent argues that the subject-matter claimed in auxiliary request 7g did not meet the requirements of the EPC.

The appeal procedure is a judicial procedure (G 7/91 published OJ 1993, 356, G 8/91 published OJ 1993, 346), in contrast to the purely administrative character of the opposition procedure. Since the appeal procedure is less investigative, the board does not further investigate the unsubstantiated objections of the respondent.

The question of whether a board of appeal can put a sole appellant in a worse position than it was in under the contested decision, or whether there should be prohibition of reformatio in peius was decided in Enlarged Board of Appeal decisions G 4/93 and G 9/92 published OJ 1994, 875). In point 7 of that decision, the Enlarged Board of Appeal considered the binding effect of the appellant's request and that "the EPC does not contain any provisions which stipu­la­te that a decision terminating appeal proceedings must not place an appellant in a worse position than it was in as a result of the contested decision". In consequence, the principle of reformatio in peius does not apply.

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The decision under appeal is set aside.

2. The case is remitted to the department of first instance with the order to maintain the patent as amended according to the following version:

- claims 1 to 8 filed as auxiliary request 7g with letter of 5 September 2016,

- description page 2 as filed during oral the proceedings and pages 3 to 14 of the patent specification,

- figures 1 to 22(b) of the patent specification.

T 2478/12 - Apple overscroll patent

Key points

• This an examination appeal of a patent application of Apple relating to the (now quite famous) overscroll.
• This patent application claims the combination of overscroll with a vertical scroll bar. The Board finds this combination not obvious, essentially because a vertical scroll  bar already provides information about when the end of document is reached.
• " D7 discloses a display apparatus with means for navigating through a displayed list of items or a document (). In order to indicate when the end of the list is reached, one or more items are temporarily displaced (). () The board points out that a scroll bar as used in D4 and D3 (or D2) already indicates that the end of a document has been reached when the vertical bar, or "thumb" () arrives at the top or bottom of the displayed document. Therefore, the skilled person would have no compelling motivation to look for further ways of indicating that the end of a document has been reached, such as by seeking to incorporate features of D7. The board considers that the incorporation of these features is not obvious but requires the benefit of hindsight." 

EPO T 2478/12 - link

Reasons for the Decision

[] 2. Claim 1 - inventive step

2.1 The present invention relates to touch-screen operated mobile devices in which scrolling through a displayed content, e.g. a document, is performed by having an object (usually a finger) make contact with the screen and moving (swiping) the object across the screen.

2.2 D4 discloses such a device. In D4 (cf. the abstract), as is common when text documents are displayed on computer devices, a vertical scroll bar is provided on the right-hand edge of the document indicating to the user the position of the displayed part in the overall document. The length of the vertical bar represents the size of the displayed portion in relation to the entire document.

2.3 The technical problem to be solved with respect to D4 can be seen as how to provide enhanced operation of the device with regard to scrolling through a displayed content piece.

2.4 In accordance with claim 1, this solution is in essence solved by:

(i) in response to detecting the object on the displayed portion of the content piece, displaying the vertical [scroll] bar overlaying the displayed portion of the content piece;
(ii) after a predetermined condition is met (e.g. when the device ceases to detect the object), ceasing to display the vertical bar while continuing to display the displayed portion of the content piece; and
(iii) after scrolling to a top of the content piece, in response to continuing to detect downward movement of the object that attempts to scroll the content piece beyond the top of the content piece, revealing a background beyond the top of the content piece and starting to reduce the length of the vertical bar.

T 1226/12 - No oral proceedings before OD

Key points

• In this case, the OD had revoked a patent without oral proceedings (these were apparently  not requested) and without issuing any advance communication (but after the statement of response of the proprietor). This does not amount to a violation of the right to be heard, because the OD had essentially agreed with a novelty attack given in one of the Notices of opposition.
• However, it is a factor for the Board to exercise its discretion and admit the auxiliary requests, first filed in appeal that could have been filed during the first instance proceedings.
• The case is then remitted for further decision on the admitted auxiliary requests.
• Filing no auxiliary requests with the statement of response during the first instance proceedings, but only with the appeal, was neither a ground for apportionment of costs.

T 1226/12 - link 

Entscheidungsgründe

[] 2. Behaupteter schwerwiegender Verfahrensfehler durch die Einspruchsabteilung

2.1 Die Beschwerdeführerin sieht in der angefochtenen Entscheidung, die ohne vorherigen Bescheid und ohne mündliche Verhandlung ergangen ist, ihr rechtliches Gehör verletzt.

2.2 Nach der gefestigten Rechtsprechung des Beschwerdekammern zur Frage des rechtlichen Gehörs im Sinne von Artikel 113 (1) EPÜ (vgl. Rechtsprechung der Beschwerdekammern des Europäischen Patentamts, 8. Auflage, 2016, III.B.2.3) können die Entscheidungen des Europäischen Patentamts nur auf "Gründe" gestützt werden, zu denen die Beteiligten sich äußern konnten. Unter "Gründe" sind diejenigen wesentlichen tatsächlichen und rechtlichen Gründe zu verstehen, auf die sich die Entscheidung stützt. Davon zu unterscheiden ist das Vorbringen neuer Argumente in der Entscheidung, da es sich dabei nicht um ein neues Vorbringen als solches, sondern um eine Untermauerung der bereits vorgebrachten Tatsachen und Rechtsgründe handelt (G 4/92, ABl. EPA 1994, 149, Punkt 10 der Entscheidungsgründe). Es ist auch zu berücksichtigen, dass es die Gewährung des rechtlichen Gehörs nach Artikel 113 EPÜ darüber hinaus verlangt, dass in den Entscheidungsgründen auf alle von den Beteiligten vorgebrachten und gegen die Entscheidung sprechenden Argumente gebührend eingegangen wird (vgl. Rechtsprechung der Beschwerdekammern des Europäischen Patentamts, 8. Auflage, 2016, III.K.4.4.).

2.3 Im vorliegenden Fall ist die angefochtene Entscheidung darauf gestützt, dass der Gegenstand von Anspruch 1 im Hinblick auf das Dokument D19, insbesondere die dortige Figur 1, nicht neu ist, was auf dem Vortrag der Beschwerdegegnerin II in ihrer Einspruchsschrift (vgl. Punkt II.2) beruht. Die diesbezügliche Begründung in der angefochtenen Entscheidung ist jedoch insofern ausführlicher, als sie nicht nur zwei in der Einspruchsschrift nicht zitierte Verweise auf Textstellen enthält, sondern insbesondere auch eine Auslegung des erteilten Anspruchs 1 vornimmt, wonach der beanspruchte Steckverbindung lediglich geeignet sein muss zum Verbinden zweier Fluidleitungen mittels mindestens eines Gegensteckverbinders (vgl. Punkte 12 und 16.2 der angefochtenen Entscheidung). Damit begegnet die Einspruchsabteilung unter anderem dem Argument der Beschwerdeführerin in der Einspruchserwiderung (vgl. Punkt III, 3.1.b.), dass die Vorrichtung nach dem Dokument D19 nicht zum Verbinden zweier Fluidleitungen diene und des Weiteren dort kein Gegensteckverbinder vorgesehen sei (vgl. Punkte 16.4 der angefochtenen Entscheidung). Seitens der Kammer wird hierzu darüber hinaus angemerkt, dass die von der Einspruchsabteilung vorgenommene Auslegung eines Anspruchs auf eine "Vorrichtung zum ..." im Sinne einer "Vorrichtung geeignet zum ..." der langjährigen, gefestigten Prüfungspraxis des Europäischen Patentamts entspricht (vgl. auch die Richtlinien für die Prüfung im Europäischen Patentamt, November 2015, F-IV, 4.13) und somit für die Parteien nicht vollkommen unerwartet sein dürfte.

Aus den genannten Gründen kommt die Kammer zu der Auffassung, dass die die angefochtene Entscheidung tragenden tatsächlichen und rechtlichen Gründe nur solche sind, zu denen die Beschwerdeführerin sich hat äußern können. Eine Verletzung des rechtlichen Gehörs im Sinne des Artikels 113 (1) EPÜ 1973 liegt demzufolge nicht vor.

T 1286/14 - Review not admitted grounds

Key points

• The Opposition Division had not admitted the late-filed ground of added subject-matter into the procedure. The argument had been resubmitted by the Opponent with its Notice of appeal. 
• The Board uses the opportunity to explain that in such cases it can only review how the OD has exercised its discretion and may not admit the ground of its own motion, in the absence of the consent of the patent proprietor, under G 10/91. 

T 1286/14 -  link

Entscheidungsgründe

1. ANSPRÜCHE WIE ERTEILT (HAUPTANTRAG)

1.1 Der erteilte Anspruch 1 (gemäß der Merkmalsgliederung der Beschwerdeführerin) umfasst die folgenden Merkmale:

a) Anlage umfassend mindestens zwei Aktorbaugruppen und eine Busleitung zur Verbindung der zwei Aktorbaugruppen, wobei
b) die Busleitung einen Kommunikationskanal und einen Kommunikationsspannungsversorgungskanal aufweist;
c) die mindestens zwei Aktorbaugruppen jeweils eine Systemschnittstelle aufweisen, welche zum Anschluss der Busleitung an die Aktorbaugruppen in einem Steuerungssystem ausgebildet sind;
d) die Systemschnittstelle einen K-Anschluss zur Verbindung des Kommunikationskanals, einen K-U-Anschluss zur Verbindung des Kommunikationsspannungsversorgungskanals und einen A-U-Anschluss zur Verbindung eines Aktorspannungsversorgungskanals aufweist;
e) die Aktorspannungsversorgung unter Zwischenschaltung einer Not-Aus-Vorrichtung in eine der Aktorbaugruppen oder in die Busleitung eingespeist wird;
f) die Not-Aus-Vorrichtung eine Abschaltung der Aktorbaugruppen bewirkt;
g) eine Betätigung der Not-Aus-Vorrichtung über den Kommunikationskanal übermittelbar ist.

1.2 Zulassung des Einspruchsgrunds nach Artikel 100 c) EPÜ

1.2.1 Die Beschwerdeführerin [Opponent] trug im schriftlichen wie mündlichen Beschwerdeverfahren vor, dass Anspruch 1 wie erteilt nicht die Erfordernisse des Artikels 123(2) EPÜ erfülle, da das Verwenden des Begriffs "Busleitung" gemäß Merkmale a)a) , b) und c) eine unzulässige Verallgemeinerung der laut ursprünglicher Beschreibung zwischen zwei Aktorbaugruppen mit drei Anschlüssen eingesetzten, als Dreidrahtleitung realisierten "Systembusleitung 12" darstelle. 

Daher sei dieser Einwand, im Gegensatz zur Feststellung in der angefochtenen Entscheidung, prima facie relevant im Sinne von G 10/91 und müsse von der Kammer in das Beschwerdeverfahren nicht nur zugelassen, sondern auch - nach einer sachlichen Überprüfung - als der Aufrechterhaltung des Streitpatents entgegenstehend betrachtet werden.

1.2.2 Aus der vorliegenden Akte geht hervor, dass die Beschwerdeführerin den obigen Einspruchsgrund nach Artikel 100 c) in Verbindung mit 123(2) EPÜ gegen Anspruch 1 wie erteilt erstmals mit ihrem Schreiben vom 11. Februar 2014 im Einspruchsverfahren erhoben hatte (vgl. Punkt I oben). Somit wurde dieser Einwand nicht rechtzeitig mit der Einspruchsschrift gemäß Artikel 99(1) in Verbindung mit Regel 76(2) c) EPÜ und folglich verspätet im Sinne von Artikel 114(2) EPÜ vorgebracht. Die Einspruchsabteilung hat diesen Einspruchsgrund nicht in das Einspruchsverfahren zugelassen mit der Begründung, dass er verspätet vorgebracht und prima facie nicht relevant sei (vgl. angefochtene Entscheidung, Gründe 14). Dennoch hat die Beschwerdeführerin diesen Einwand in ihrer Beschwerdebegründung nochmals geltend gemacht (vgl. Punkt III oben). Zur Klärung der Frage, ob nun - wie von der Beschwerdeführerin gefordert - eine sachliche Überprüfung der erstinstanzlichen Ermessensentscheidung in der Tat geboten ist, bedarf es nach Auffassung dieser Kammer einer Auslegung der einschlägigen Rechtsprechung der Großen Beschwerdekammer.

G 0001/15 - Partial priority (full decision)

Update - full decision now available
at http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/g150001ex1.html




Order of the Enlarged Board
Under the EPC, entitlement to partial priority may not be refused for a claim encompassing alternative subject-matter by virtue of one or more generic expressions or otherwise (generic "OR"-claim) provided that said alternative subject-matter has been disclosed for the first time, directly, or at least implicitly, unambiguously and in an enabling manner in the priority document. No other substantive conditions or limitations apply in this respect.



https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP98203458&documentId=EZRVZZP16932684&lng=en


EPO G 0001/15; G 1/15; EPO G1/15;

T 1188/15 - Article 69 and sufficiency

Key points

• The case deals with insufficient disclosure of a parameter that is poorly defined in the claim. The Board is from the outside quite clear that the invention is not sufficiently disclosed. The argument that the specification provides information about the meaning of the parameter recited in the claims, is not accepted, in view of Article 69 EPC.
• " The appellant's argument that Article 69 EPC provided a basis for the skilled person to only consider stretch along the length of the waistband is not persuasive. At no time has a question regarding the clear linguistic structure, scope or meaning of the subject-matter of claim 1 been raised which could provide justification for interpretation of this in the light of the description." 

T 1188/15 - link

VIII. Claim 1 of both the main request and auxiliary request 1 reads as follows:

"An article of apparel (10) comprising:
a pelvic region (120) for covering a pelvic area (20) of a wearer (100), the pelvic region defining a waistband (22) for extending around a waist of the wearer, the waistband having a first layer that defines a portion of an exterior surface (13) of the apparel, the first layer being formed from a first woven textile (11) that exhibits at least thirty percent stretch prior to tensile failure, and the waistband having a second layer that defines a portion of an interior surface (14) of the apparel, the second layer being formed from a second woven textile (12) that exhibits less than ten percent stretch prior to tensile failure; and
a pair of leg regions (30) for covering at least a portion of legs of the wearer, a majority of the exterior surface and the interior surface of the apparel in the leg regions being formed from the first woven textile."

Reasons for the Decision

1. Main request

1.1 Article 100(b) EPC

The ground for opposition under Article 100(b) EPC prejudices the maintenance of the patent according to the main request (as granted).

1.2 The skilled person is unable to carry out the invention according to the main request at least because no direction of measurement of the claimed stretch prior to tensile failure of the woven textiles is given in claim 1 and, already from common general knowledge, the skilled person is aware that woven textile materials exhibit different stretch behaviour dependent upon the direction of measurement.

[...]

1.5 The appellant's argument that the measurement direction of the claimed stretch was clearly along the length of the waistband, and that any other interpretation would be obtuse, is not accepted. Claim 1 itself provides no indication in this respect, with the parameter 'stretch prior to tensile failure' simply being given range limits of at least thirty percent and less than ten percent, without any indication, even implicit, of the direction in which this is to be measured. The reference to col. 4, lines 48 to 55 of the patent specification referring to securing of the apparel to the individual does not help in this respect, not least as this concerns a particular embodiment of the invention in the form of water shorts (see paragraph [0017]), whereas claim 1 has a far broader scope covering simply an article of apparel with a waistband and a pair of leg regions. 

1.7 The appellant's argument that Article 69 EPC provided a basis for the skilled person to only consider stretch along the length of the waistband is not persuasive. At no time has a question regarding the clear linguistic structure, scope or meaning of the subject-matter of claim 1 been raised which could provide justification for interpretation of this in the light of the description. The Board also sees no difficulty with the meaning of claim 1, the claim simply being of a broad scope, specifically encompassing stretch prior to tensile failure in any direction whatsoever of the first and second woven textile in any article of apparel having the defined features. The skilled person thus has no requirement to interpret the claim in a more limited sense in the light of a specific embodiment of the description to which the claim is not limited, the claim itself imparting a clear and credible technical teaching to the skilled reader.

T 0258/13 - Apportionment of costs

Key points

• Withdrawal of a request for oral proceedings by a party in this opposition appeal, at 17:00 two days before, caused an apportionment of cost against that party.
• The apportionment is only for the costs for the professional representative, not for accompanying persons. " The Board points out, however, that for the oral proceedings only the presence of an authorized representative is necessary. The attendance or not of an accompanying person has no bearing on the conduct of the oral proceedings and is a matter of a deliberate choice from a party for which the other party need not be involved. To charge the appellant also with costs incurred by the accompanying person would contravene the principle of equity" 

EPO T 0258/13 - link

2. Apportionment of costs

2.1 The appellant withdrew its request for oral proceedings per telefax at 17:00 on 9 January 2017, i.e. only two days before the oral proceedings scheduled for 11 January 2017, de facto only one day in view of the lateness of the filing in the day (17:00).

In reaction, the respondent requested apportionment of costs pursuant to Article 104(1) EPC with two letters dated 10 January 2017, arguing that the appellant's request for the withdrawal of oral proceedings was filed in such a short notice that it resulted in unnecessary costs for the preparation of oral proceedings and for the cancellation of flights and accommodation for the authorized representative and the accompanying persons.