T 0266/14 - Lacking signature legal member

Key points

• In this opposition appeal, the OD had been extended with a legal member who also participated in the oral proceedings. However, the written decision was not signed by the legal member. In fact, the legal member was not involved at all in the drafting of the written decision.
• The Board decides that this is a substantial procedural violation and remits the case.

EPO T 0266/14 - link

Entscheidungsgründe

1. Die Beschwerde der Patentinhaberin ist zulässig.

Bei dem angegriffenen Beschluss, den die Einspruchsabteilung gemäß Regel 111 (1) Satz 1 EPÜ am Schluss der mündlichen Verhandlung verkündet hat, handelt es sich Artikel 106 (1),(2) EPÜ entsprechend um eine verfahrensabschließende, beschwerdefähige Entscheidung. Eine Entscheidung wird bereits mit ihrer Verkündung existent [], d.h. schon vor deren schriftlicher Abfassung bzw. Unterzeichnung durch die Mitglieder des Spruchkörpers. Etwaige Mängel bei der schriftlichen Abfassung der Entscheidung, wie z.B. eine fehlende Unterzeichnung, berühren den verfahrensabschließenden Charakter der Entscheidung daher nicht.

2. Die Beschwerde ist auch begründet.

Es liegt ein schwerwiegender Verfahrensfehler vor, weil die schriftlich abgefasste Entscheidung der rechtskundigen Prüferin weder zugeleitet worden ist noch von dieser unterzeichnet wurde.

T 0687/14 - Novelty, genus and species mistake?

Key points

• " Appellant I (patent proprietors) argued that document D3 does not unambiguously necessarily disclose that the mark appears "as a three dimensional mark when viewed in transmitted light". Thus, as argued on behalf of appellant I, the expres­sion "rastered half-tone ima­ges, such as portraits" of document D3 may encompass portraits such as silhouettes or abstract facial representations (e.g. a "smiley") which are flat."
• " The expres­sion "portraits" [in D3] encom­pas­ses portraits such as the ones illustrated in fi­gures 1 and 2 of document D7 or figure 12 of document E14. These portraits [in D7 and E14] are a representation of a human face and thus satisfy the requirement of "appearing as a three dimensional mark" in the sense of the patent in suit, because they are an attempt at a three dimensio­nal ap­pea­ring representation of a (necessarily three dimen­sio­nal) human face." 
• " The disclosure "rastered half-tone images, such as portraits" of document D3 thus necessarily includes portraits which fall under the understanding of the feature "at least one digitised mark made of at least one set of dots appearing as a three dimen­sio­nal mark when viewed in transmitted light" [] as defined in the patent in suit. The fact that, in addition, there may be portraits which fall under the disclosure of document D3 but which do not cor­res­pond to the claimed feature does not invalidate the existence of those that do: the wording of the claimed feature is even more generic than the disclosure in document D3 and is thus anticipated by it." (underlining added twice).
• I seriously think that the Board makes a species - genus mistake here. D3 discloses 'portrait' . This is a genus including 3D portraits as species (and also 2D portraits). The claim requires a 3D-looking image.  However, mentioning a genus does not disclose a species. As the Board seems to think. By analogy, if a claim requires "a yellow-green gas" , and the prior art teaches "halogen", then it is not relevant that one of the 6 known halogen elements is chlorine (which is a gas with yellow-green color). Because not all halogens are yellow-green gases (e.g. iodine is not), the claim is clearly novel. Obvious perhaps, but novel. However, perhaps I overlook something.  

EPO T 0687/14 -  link

Auxiliary request 1

2. Novelty

2.1 Document D3 concerns security films for embedding in, or applying on, papers of value consisting of a trans­lucent carrier film and a metal cover layer applied thereto, having coating-free areas, which are clearly visible in particular in transmitted light (paragraph [0001], preamble of claims 1 and 16). The Process disclosed in document D3 aims to generate negative images in metal-coated foils which are characterized by a high contour sharpness (paragraph [0006]). This sharpness of the contours makes it possible to produce rastered half-tone images. Thus, half-tone images, such as portraits in the cover layer, can be formed on coated security films. Embedding these foils between two layers of a security paper creates a watermark-like effect, since the portraits are not or only slightly visible in incident light, but highly recognisable and rich in contrast in transmitted light (paragraph [0009]).

Summertime reading - Charles Dickens on patents

"Look at the Home Secretary, the Attorney-General, the Patent Office, the Engrossing Clerk, the Lord Chancellor, the Privy Seal, the Clerk of the Patents, the Lord Chancellor's Purse-bearer, the Clerk of the Hanaper, the Deputy Clerk of the Hanaper, the Deputy Sealer, and the Deputy Chaff-wax. No man in England could get a Patent for an Indian-rubber band, or an iron-hoop, without feeing all of them. Some of them, over and over again. I went through thirty-five stages. I began with the Queen upon the Throne. I ended with the Deputy Chaff-wax. Note. I should like to see the Deputy Chaff-wax. Is it a man, or what is it?" 

'John, if the laws of this country were as honest as they ought to be, you would have come to London - registered an exact description and drawing of your invention - paid half-a-crown or so for doing of it - and therein and thereby have got your Patent.' 

A Poor Man's Tale of a Patent, by Charles Dickens

T 0049/13 - Additional decision without discussion

Key points

• In this opposition appeal, the OD found all requests to violate A123(2). In addition, the main request was found to lack novelty. However, novelty was not discussed during the oral proceedings. Is this a substantial procedural violation?
• The Board decides it is not: "Had the opposition division not considered the compliance of the main request with Article 54 EPC, its decision would have remained the same; the patent would have still been revoked. It thus may have been an error on the part of the opposition division to decide on the compliance of the main request with the requirements of Articles 54 and 83 EPC, or not [rather than?] to have considered these issues under an obiter dictum. Nevertheless, an error which would not have led to a different outcome of the proceedings is not a substantial procedural violation."

EPO T 0049/13 -  link

Reasons for the Decision

Substantial procedural violation (Article 113(1) EPC)

1. The appellant submitted that the decision under appeal suffered from a substantial procedural violation, since the opposition division decided that the main request lacked novelty, although the parties were not heard on this issue during the oral proceedings (see decision under appeal, sections 14.1 to 14.4 and 16).

T 0661/14 - Former Examiner speaks

Key points

• " Since three authorised professional representatives were present at appellant 2's [opponent's]  side during the oral proceedings, the Board decided to authorise the [additional] accompanying person [for the opponent] to address the Board under their supervision." 
• From the file, the person was a former patent examiner with EPO and joined the patent attorney firm in July 2017 (straight from the EPO, it seems). The oral proceeding were held on 13 October 2017. 
• The Board disagrees with opponents arguments, considers the Main Requests allowable and remits the case with an order to maintain the patent in amended form accordingly.  

EPO T 0661/14 -  link

Reasons for the Decision

1. Accompanying person - right to speak on legal issues

Appellant 1 [proprietor] holds the view that accompanying persons at oral proceedings who are not qualified patent attorneys can only be allowed by the Board to speak on technical issues, and not to make submissions on legal issues. Hence, for appellant 1 the person accompanying appellant 2's [opponent's] authorised representative(s) at the oral proceedings should not be allowed to make submissions on legal issues.

The Board disagrees.

There is no reason, when dealing with the question whether an accompanying person may make oral submissions before the the Board, to make a distinction between legal and technical issues, provided that these submissions are made under the control and supervision of an authorised professional representative. In this respect the Board refers to the Case Law of the Boards of Appeal, 8th Edition 2016, III.R.5.1. Since three authorised professional representatives were present at appellant 2's side during the oral proceedings, the Board decided to authorise the accompanying person to address the Board under their supervision.

T 0884/14 - Public prior use not admitted

Key points

• The Board does not admit a public prior use attack filed for the first time with the Statement of grounds.
• The Board, in rough translation: "The opponent can no longer submit a product of his own which is out of production for a long time as alleged public prior use, if a search for the product was omitted at the outset, even though the opponent knew about the product that was the subject of the prior use and should have urged a timely search for it in its own company documents. An erroneous assumption that the evidence would fall short, can not benefit the opponent in that respect. In any case, the behavior can be equated with an abuse of procedure with the result of ignoring the late objection.

EPO T 0884/14 - link


Ein seit längerer Zeit nicht mehr hergestelltes Erzeugnis aus dem eigenen Haus kann von der Einsprechenden als angeblich öffentliche Vorbenutzung jedenfalls dann nicht mehr in das Beschwerdeverfahren eingebracht werden, wenn eine Recherche nach diesem Erzeugnis von Anfang an unterlassen wurde, obwohl die Einsprechende den vorbenutzten Gegenstand kannte und sich eine rechtzeitige Recherche in den eigenen Firmenunterlagen hätte aufdrängen müssen. Eine irrtümlich angenommene Beweisnot kommt ihr insoweit nicht zugute. Das Verhalten kann einem Verfahrensmissbrauch jedenfalls mit dem Ergebnis der Nichtberücksichtigung des späten Einwands gleichgestellt werden.

Entscheidungsgründe

1. Geltend gemachte offenkundige Vorbenutzungen V und W

Gemäß Art 12(4) VOBK hat die Kammer die Befugnis, Tatsachen, Beweismittel oder Anträge nicht zuzulassen, die bereits im erstinstanzlichen Verfahren hätten vorgebracht werden können. Insbesondere ist nach ständiger Rechtsprechung der Beschwerdekammern (Rechtsprechung der Beschwerdekammern, 8. Aufl., IV.C.1.3.17) bei der Zulassung einer verspätet geltend gemachten Vorbenutzung ein strenger Maßstab für die Zulassung anzulegen.

Wie die Kammer bereits in ihrem Ladungsbescheid ausgeführt hatte, kann eine erstmals im Beschwerdeverfahren vorgebrachte offenkundige Vorbenutzung nach der Entscheidung T 691/12 nur dann berücksichtigt werden, wenn zumindest drei Voraussetzungen erfüllt sind:

a) es darf sich nicht um einen erkennbaren Verfahrensmissbrauch handeln,
b) die Vorbenutzung muss prima facie so relevant sein, dass sie die Gültigkeit des Patents in Frage stellt,
c) die Vorbenutzung muss lückenlos nachgewiesen sein, so dass keine weiteren Ermittlungen zur Feststellung ihres Gegenstands bzw. ihrer Umstände notwendig sind.

Wenn mithin ein Verfahrensmissbrauch festgestellt werden kann, kommt es auf die mögliche Relevanz der offenkundigen Vorbenutzung nicht mehr an (siehe auch T 17/91, Punkt 5 der Entscheidungsgründe).

T 0261/15 - Novelty of steel alloys

Key points

• Claim 1 is for a stail rail, wherein the steel consists of the the elements C, Si, Mn, V, N, P, S, H, Cr, Al and O each with a range for the amount, the balance being Fe and unavoidable impurities.
• D1, D5, D9, and D8 disclose steel with (some of) these elements, but with different (but overlapping) ranges.
• Is claim 1 novel? The Board: " Thus, in the case of an alloy composition, a disclosure of a combination of the different alloying elements within the claimed ranges is necessary for a finding of lack of novelty." 
• The Board: " The criterion (c) [of T 279/89, "the selected area should not provide an arbitrary specimen from the prior art, i.e. not a mere embodiment of the prior description, but another invention (purposive selection)."]  by contrast goes beyond the comparison of the invention defined in the claims with the disclosure of the prior art, because it considers the presence of an effect of the claimed invention. Whether the claimed selection is purposive or not is thus, in the view of the present Board, more a question of inventive step than of novelty. As pointed out by the respondent, this view is also taken in the majority of the more recent jurisprudence (see for instance T 1233/05, T 230/07 or T 1948/10)." 
• "The appellant [opponent]  attempted to find a teaching in D1 leading towards the claimed composition. Depending on the alloying element, the appellant considered for some elements the middle of the composition range disclosed in D1, whereas for other elements the limit values of the broad or preferred ranges taught in this document were used. In respect of the limit values the appellant further argued that these values were explicitly disclosed and that in order to recognise novelty of a sub-range selected from a broader numerical range of the prior art the selected sub-range had inter alia to be sufficiently far removed from the end-points of the known range. The approach taken by the appellant is an exercise in cherry-picking within the disclosure of D1, which creates a novel combination of features that is not disclosed in D1" 
• " In the view of this Board, the limit values of a known range, although explicitly disclosed, are not be treated in the same way as the examples. The person skilled in the art would not, in the absence of further teaching in this direction, necessarily contemplate working in the region of the end-points of the prior art range, which are normally not representative of the gist of the prior art teaching." 
• Compare recent decision [2018] EWCA Civ 1416, discussed here on IPKat. 
• Generally, the reason why for metal alloys and steel compositions, granted claims always use " consisting of .... the balance being Fe and unavoidable impurities" (or similar phrasing) was discussed here and boils down to established EPO practice described in the article of Mr.  Spiekermann in Mitt. 1993 (XP002152326)

EPO T 0261/15 -  link

2. Novelty

2.1 Claim 1 is directed to a pearlitic steel rail which is defined by its composition.

Novelty objections have been raised in view of each of D1, D5, D9 and D8. The composition of claim 1 and the broad compositions disclosed in these documents are compared in the following table (in wt%):

Summertime reading - Rule 137(5) EPC - Article in epi Information

Regular readers are likely aware that Rule 137(5) appears quite frequently in the case law and in this blog (see here for an overview).   I have tried to shed some light on it in my recently published article in epi Information.

T 1516/14 - Superfluous feature

Key point

• Claim 1 as granted specifies a feature that can be read in two ways. The first way is not supported by the other claims. The second way is inherently true, namely that the scalding medium has a dew point not exceeding the wet bulb temperature. Does this lead to insufficient disclosure?
• The Board finds it does not. " In the Board's view the skilled person approaches a claim from a purely technical viewpoint, not the patent technical or patent legal viewpoint of the patent professional. That a feature may not contribute to an invention because it merely expresses the technically obvious does not make it illogical or not credible in a purely technical sense. Naturally, from the point of view of an opponent or a diligent examiner patentability cannot credibly rely on such a feature, but that is not relevant to the question under consideration." 
• "  As already explained, the dew point temperature of a fluid-vapour/gas medium never exceeds the wet bulb temperature. Therefore, far from the skilled person being unable to carry out the aspect of the invention defined by this particular feature, they can but achieve this feature when composing a partially or almost fully saturated scalding medium as the claim requires. Therefore, this aspect of the invention is sufficiently disclosed." 

EPO T 1516/14 - link

"1. Device  for scalding poultry , comprising:
- a conditioning space for composing a scalding medium,
- a processing space  provided with transport means  which define a transport path ...  and ... the device  is for scalding poultry  comprising a full plumage,
characterized in that
the conditioning space  is for composing a partially or almost fully saturated scalding medium with a dew point lying in the range of [49-61]°C and not exceeding the wet bulb temperature, and ...".

Reasons for the Decision

3.4 The Board does not share the respondent-opponent's view that the skilled person would reject the second reading of the relevant claim feature (dew point not exceeding wet bulb temperature) as being illogical or not credible, as it does not contribute anything to the invention.

In the Board's view the skilled person approaches a claim from a purely technical viewpoint, not the patent technical or patent legal viewpoint of the patent professional. That a feature may not contribute to an invention because it merely expresses the technically obvious does not make it illogical or not credible in a purely technical sense. Naturally, from the point of view of an opponent or a diligent examiner patentability cannot credibly rely on such a feature, but that is not relevant to the question under consideration.

In the Board's view the the skilled person, exactly because they are first and foremost interested in making technical sense of a claim, will on first reading always reject a technically non-sensible reading in favour of a sensible one if they have to choose between different possible readings. According to established jurisprudence (see Case Law of the Boards of Appeal, 8th edition, 2016 (CLBA), II.A.6.1, and the decisions cited therein), when considering a claim, the skilled person thus rules out interpretations which are illogical or which do not make technical sense. For them, a reading that results in a technical impossibility (scalding medium must be both saturated and non saturated) is technically non-sensible, i.e. technically illogical or not credible. It may be that when they read the claim in the light of the whole disclosure they may revise that first reading, because for example the description clearly supports the technically non-sensible reading. That is not the case here, where as stated there is no support anywhere else in the patent for the technically non-sensible reading that scalding temperature does not exceed wet bulb temperature.

In particular, from their technical knowledge of psychrometry, the skilled person is familiar with the well established and generally known meanings of the terms "dew point" and "wet bulb temperature" and they know from their general knowledge that the dew point temperature never exceeds the wet bulb temperature, because it is an inherent psychrometric condition of a fluid-vapour/gas medium. Therefore, in the Board's view, the second reading of the relevant claim feature makes perfect technical sense as always true and is both technically logical and credible, whereas the first reading clearly is not.

In the present case, as already explained, the above interpretation makes perfect technical sense and is logical, indeed it cannot be otherwise. Thus it will not be rejected by the skilled person as being an impossible interpretation of the relevant feature.

3.5 In conclusion the above feature is to be interpreted according to the second reading, namely as defining that the dew point of the partially or almost fully saturated scalding medium has a dew point lying in the range of [49-61]°C and that this dew point does not exceed the wet bulb temperature (of the scalding medium).

3.6 The Board must therefore examine, based on this interpretation, whether the invention is sufficiently disclosed. Article 83 EPC requires that the European patent application shall disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art. In accordance with established jurisprudence, as summarised in G 2/93, point 4, "in order to meet the requirements of Article 83 EPC, a European patent application [European patent in Article 100(b)] must therefore contain sufficient information to allow a person skilled in the art, using his common general knowledge, to perceive the technical teaching inherent in the claimed invention and to put it into effect accordingly."

3.7 Thus, the consideration as to whether or not a particular feature distinguishes the claimed subject matter from the prior art, or indeed whether or not it is merely a statement of something that is inherently true, plays no role in assessing sufficiency of disclosure. Nor is it for the Board to speculate as to why a particular feature was added to the claim in examination proceedings. The subjective intentions of the patentee are relevant for the purposes of interpreting the claims only to the extent that these intentions are explicitly formulated in and therefore derivable from the patent specification itself. In short, the Board must assess whether the skilled person can carry out the invention from the information in the patent and the skilled person's general knowledge alone.

3.8 As already explained, the dew point temperature of a fluid-vapour/gas medium never exceeds the wet bulb temperature. Therefore, far from the skilled person being unable to carry out the aspect of the invention defined by this particular feature, they can but achieve this feature when composing a partially or almost fully saturated scalding medium as the claim requires. Therefore, this aspect of the invention is sufficiently disclosed.

3.4 The Board does not share the respondent-opponent's view that the skilled person would reject the second reading of the relevant claim feature (dew point not exceeding wet bulb temperature) as being illogical or not credible, as it does not contribute anything to the invention.

In the Board's view the skilled person approaches a claim from a purely technical viewpoint, not the patent technical or patent legal viewpoint of the patent professional. That a feature may not contribute to an invention because it merely expresses the technically obvious does not make it illogical or not credible in a purely technical sense. Naturally, from the point of view of an opponent or a diligent examiner patentability cannot credibly rely on such a feature, but that is not relevant to the question under consideration.

In the Board's view the the skilled person, exactly because they are first and foremost interested in making technical sense of a claim, will on first reading always reject a technically non-sensible reading in favour of a sensible one if they have to choose between different possible readings. According to established jurisprudence (see Case Law of the Boards of Appeal, 8th edition, 2016 (CLBA), II.A.6.1, and the decisions cited therein), when considering a claim, the skilled person thus rules out interpretations which are illogical or which do not make technical sense. For them, a reading that results in a technical impossibility (scalding medium must be both saturated and non saturated) is technically non-sensible, i.e. technically illogical or not credible. It may be that when they read the claim in the light of the whole disclosure they may revise that first reading, because for example the description clearly supports the technically non-sensible reading. That is not the case here, where as stated there is no support anywhere else in the patent for the technically non-sensible reading that scalding temperature does not exceed wet bulb temperature.

In particular, from their technical knowledge of psychrometry, the skilled person is familiar with the well established and generally known meanings of the terms "dew point" and "wet bulb temperature" and they know from their general knowledge that the dew point temperature never exceeds the wet bulb temperature, because it is an inherent psychrometric condition of a fluid-vapour/gas medium. Therefore, in the Board's view, the second reading of the relevant claim feature makes perfect technical sense as always true and is both technically logical and credible, whereas the first reading clearly is not.

In the present case, as already explained, the above interpretation makes perfect technical sense and is logical, indeed it cannot be otherwise. Thus it will not be rejected by the skilled person as being an impossible interpretation of the relevant feature.

3.5 In conclusion the above feature is to be interpreted according to the second reading, namely as defining that the dew point of the partially or almost fully saturated scalding medium has a dew point lying in the range of [49-61]°C and that this dew point does not exceed the wet bulb temperature (of the scalding medium).

3.6 The Board must therefore examine, based on this interpretation, whether the invention is sufficiently disclosed. Article 83 EPC requires that the European patent application shall disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art. In accordance with established jurisprudence, as summarised in G 2/93, point 4, "in order to meet the requirements of Article 83 EPC, a European patent application [European patent in Article 100(b)] must therefore contain sufficient information to allow a person skilled in the art, using his common general knowledge, to perceive the technical teaching inherent in the claimed invention and to put it into effect accordingly."

3.7 Thus, the consideration as to whether or not a particular feature distinguishes the claimed subject matter from the prior art, or indeed whether or not it is merely a statement of something that is inherently true, plays no role in assessing sufficiency of disclosure. Nor is it for the Board to speculate as to why a particular feature was added to the claim in examination proceedings. The subjective intentions of the patentee are relevant for the purposes of interpreting the claims only to the extent that these intentions are explicitly formulated in and therefore derivable from the patent specification itself. In short, the Board must assess whether the skilled person can carry out the invention from the information in the patent and the skilled person's general knowledge alone.

3.8 As already explained, the dew point temperature of a fluid-vapour/gas medium never exceeds the wet bulb temperature. Therefore, far from the skilled person being unable to carry out the aspect of the invention defined by this particular feature, they can but achieve this feature when composing a partially or almost fully saturated scalding medium as the claim requires. Therefore, this aspect of the invention is sufficiently disclosed.

[...]

5. Request of the respondent-opponent for referral of a question to the Enlarged Board of Appeal

5.1 Article 112 EPC provides for the possibility of referring questions of law to the Enlarged Board "in order to ensure uniform application of the law or if a point of law of fundamental importance arises" (paragraph (1)).

In the present case the respondent-opponent has asked for referral of a question concerning the assessment of sufficiency of disclosure under Article 83 EPC. The question can be summarised as: whether the assessment for the clear and complete disclosure of an invention, so that it can be carried out, under Article 100 (b) EPC (Article 83 EPC), may be reduced to the assessment of merely an internal logic and/or the correct syntax of a claim, so that the overall teaching of the patent as a whole, in particular the problem to be solved, can be disregarded?

5.2 As already explained, the jurisprudence concerning how sufficiency of disclosure is to be assessed (see point 3.6 above) is well established and is uniformly applied. Nor does the Board depart from this in the present case. In particular, the Board does not rely solely on internal logic or syntax of the claim to arrive at its conclusion.

5.3 In the present case, the Board has established that the invention as claimed in the independent claim 1 can be carried out by analysing the features of claim 1 in the context of the whole patent. In so doing the Board has moreover approached the claim as does the skilled person to make technical sense of it, using the general knowledge of the skilled person. Therefore, the question proposed for referral is not relevant to the case in hand.

5.4 In the light of the above, the Board concludes that there is no justification for referring the question posed to the Enlarged Board of Appeal.

6. Remittal

6.1 In accordance with Article 111(1) EPC, second sentence, the Board of Appeal may either exercise any power within the competence of the department which was responsible for the decision appealed or remit the case to that department for further prosecution.

Since the main purpose of the appeal proceedings is to give the losing party a possibility to challenge the decision of the opposition division on its merits (see G 10/91, point 18), remittal in accordance with Article 111(1) EPC is normally considered by the Boards in cases where the opposition division issues a decision solely upon a particular issue and leaves other substantive issues undecided.

6.2 As explained above, the only reason for rejecting the main request was the consideration of the opposition ground of insufficient disclosure. The decision did not consider the opposition grounds of novelty and inventive step raised under Article 100(a) EPC having regard to various documents and an alleged public prior use (see notice of opposition, pages 5 to 8), all these objections being maintained in appeal proceedings.

6.3 Although both parties have requested that the Board deal with all outstanding issues, in both cases this was conditional on the Board finding in favour of the respective party and without consideration of the arguments and evidence adduced against inventive step. The Board can of course not honour both requests. Both parties do in fact request remittal if the arguments and evidence against inventive step are to be examined. At the oral proceedings before the Board the respondent opponent expressly stated that he would not withdraw them. Consequently, the parties' relevant request is for remittal.

6.4 Furthermore, examination of novelty and inventive step involves consideration of various prior art documents and an alleged public prior use, potentially with the hearing of a witness. This would go far beyond the primary purpose of these appeal proceedings, essentially, that of reviewing the impugned decision's finding that the invention according to claims 1 and 13 as granted was insufficiently disclosed. The Board therefore sees no reason to depart from the parties' relevant request for remittal.

6.5 For these reasons, the Board decided not to deal with the issues of novelty and inventive step of the patent as granted, but to remit the case to the opposition division for further prosecution.

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 for further prosecution.

T 0486/14 - Trademark metal alloy in claim

Key points

• In this opposition appeal, claim 1 of the auxiliary request differs from claim 1 of the main request in that the nickel-based superalloy is defined as being "Waspaloy".
• " WASPALOY is a registered trademark that refers to a nickel-based superalloy. The reliance on a trademark in claim 1 introduces a lack of clarity, since it cannot be guaranteed that the alloy referred to with the trademark WASPALOY has a single, established composition, nor that such composition stays constant over time." 
• " If alloys carrying the designation WASPALOY in 2018 would still contain Nb [as they did according to a 2006 document], it would be expected that the latter element would necessarily appear in the elements listed in the chemistry table of D16 ["a copy of a Wikipedia article relating to WASPALOY dated 17 May 2018"]. The trademark WASPALOY thus does not have such a well known meaning that would imply a constant and defined chemical composition belonging to common general knowledge of the skilled person. The introduction of the trademark WASPALOY in claim 1 thus renders the claim prima facie unclear." 
• Therefore, the AR filed during the oral proceedings is not admitted and the patent is revoked.

EPO T 0486/14 - link

2. Auxiliary request - admittance

2.1 Claim 1 of the auxiliary request differs from claim 1 of the main request in that the nickel-based superalloy is defined as being "Waspaloy".

2.2 The request was filed during the oral proceedings, hence at the latest possible stage in the proceedings, and the Board needed to exercise its discretion as to whether the request should have been admitted into proceedings in accordance with Article 13(1) RPBA. In order to be admitted, inter alia the aspect of procedural economy given in Article 13(1) RPBA should be considered, which implies at least that the request should be prima facie allowable in the sense that it overcomes the objections raised without giving rise to new objections. This is however not the case for claim 1 of this request, for the following reasons.

T 2079/10 - Physical parameters are technical (for AI?)

Key points

• In this examination appeal, the Board considers claim 1 to include technical features, in particular the feature that a control unit is triggered by physical measurement parameters. Hence, claim 1 is not purely a business method.
• The Board seems to explain that the feature of physical parameters can not be taken as part of the problem statement under the Comvik approach. Moreover, it can not be assumed that the technical person chooses the physical parameters, on the basis of which the technical person gets a business method to implement from the business person.
• The Board: " Es kann nämlich nicht davon ausgegangen werden, dass ein technischer Fachmann zunächst eine physikalische Ausgangsgröße festlegt, auf deren Basis er dann vom Geschäftsmann ein rein abstraktes Geschäftsverfahren als Konzept zur Implementierung vorgegeben bekommt. Diese Vorgehensweise entspricht auch nicht dem nach gängiger Rechtsprechung angewandten COMVIK-Ansatz" 
• Software is not my technical field, but I guess this decision could in fact be important for AI inventions. In particular for e.g. neural network designs suitable for processing real world data such as video. The presently claimed invention seems to use a Monte Carlo simulation / tree search.

EPO T 2079/10 - link

VIII. Der unabhängige Anspruch 1 gemäß dem Hauptantrag (Anhang A) lautet:
"1. Verfahren zur elektronischen Steuerung von zellulären, geographisch verteilten Alarmsystemen (10/11), wobei mittels einer Sensorik (201) einer Steuervorrichtung (20) physikalische Messparameter (202) von sich ereignender [sic] Messereignissen (203), welche einen Alarm oder Betriebsintervention notwendig machen, getriggert werden, und basierend auf vordefinierten Schwellwerten (204) gefiltert werden und wobei die Alarmsysteme (10/11) mittels der Steuervorrichtung (20) elektronisch selektiert und aktiviert werden, falls mindestens ein entsprechender Schwellwert (204) eines Messereignisses (203) überschritten wird, und wobei zur Aktivierung mittels der Steuervorrichtung (20) gridzellenweise abgestufte Aktivierungssignale (101) generiert, auf die zellulären Alarmsysteme (10/11) übertragen werden und die zellulären Alarmsysteme (10/11) entsprechend aktiviert werden, dadurch gekennzeichnet,
dass mittels eines Countermoduls (21) der Steuervorrichtung (20) innerhalb eines vordefinierten Zeitfensters (205) bei jeder Aktivierung Aktivierungsparameter (102) des [sic] durch die Steuervorrichtung (20) generierten Aktivierungssignale (101) kumuliert und in einer Speichereinheit (24) der Steuervorrichtung (20) als Countersignal (211) abgespeichert werden, wobei jedes Aktivierungssignal (101) mindestens einen Aktivierungsparameter (10/11) entsprechend dem Umfang der Aktivierung des entsprechenden Alarmsystems (10/11) umfasst, und wobei die Kumulierung mittels normierter Einheiten erfolgt,
dass basierend auf dem kumulierten Countersignal (211) in Kombination mit der geographischen Verteilung der Alarmsysteme (10/11) innerhalb des mittels der Steuervorrichtung (20) und der zugeordneten Sensorik (201) überwachten Gebiets (30) mittels eines MonteCarlo-Moduls (22) zugeordnete Aktivierungsindexparameter (103) bestimmt werden, welche Aktivierungsindexparameter (103) mindestens eine mittlere Aktivierung der Alarmsysteme (10/11) im überwachten Gebiet (30) umfassen,
dass die Messparameter (202) des Messereignisses (203) geographische Ortsparameter (2021) sowie physikalische Messparameter (2022) umfassen, wobei mittels eines Filtermoduls (23) nach Ablauf des Zeitfensters (205) der Aktivierungsindexparameter (103) mittels des topographischen Grids (31) des überwachten Gebietes (30) dynamisch basierend auf den geographische [sic] Ortsparameter [sic] (2021) sowie den physikalischen Messparameter [sic] (2022) gewichtet und in einer [sic] gridbasierten, topographischen Lookup Table (25) abgespeichert werden, wobei zur dynamischen Gewichtung die Messparameter (202) mittels einem Extrapolations-Modul (26) der Steuervorrichtung (20) basierend auf abgespeicherten modellierten Ereignisfunktionen (261) fortgepflanzt werden, und wobei das Extrapolations-Modul (26) die Selektion einer bestimmten Ereignisfunktion (261) basierend auf den gemessenen Messparameter [sic] 202 durchführt,
dass die auf die Alarmsysteme (10/11) übertragenen Aktivierungssignalen [sic] (101) gridzellenweise abgestuft basierend auf den dynamischen Lookup-Table Elementen (251) generiert werden, wobei die jeweiligen Aktivierungsparameter (102) eines Aktivierungssignals (101) dem jeweiligen dynamischen Lookup-Table Element (251) entsprechen."

T 2058/12 - Appeal refusal without warning

Key points

• The Board rejects this examination appeal without oral proceedings and without any substantive Communication to the appellant beforehand.

EPO T 2058/12 - link

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The appeal is directed against the decision of the Examining Division to refuse European patent application 04 754 312.9.

Reasons for the Decision

Preliminary remark

1. In accordance with Article 12(l)(a) RPBA, the appeal proceedings are based on the notice of appeal and the grounds of appeal.

In accordance with Article 12(3) RPBA, the Board may decide the case in proceedings with only one party at any time after the statement of grounds has been filed, subject to Articles 113 and 116 EPC.

With regard to Article 113 EPC, the present decision does not go beyond the grounds and evidence in the impugned decision and the appellant's statement of grounds. It is settled case law that a board of appeal is not required to provide a party with all foreseeable arguments against a request in advance (see R 1/08, reasons 3.1).

Since no request for oral proceedings under Article 116 EPC has been made by the Appellant, the present decision may be taken without recourse to any preceding communication to the Appellant.

[...]

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is dismissed.

Summer Schedule

I will slow down the publication schedule a bit for the summer.

Enjoy the holidays!

Peter

T 1608/13 - Clarity vs. Insufficiency

Key points

• The OD has revoked the patent for insufficient disclosure. Does this mean that in appeal, the patentee (appellant) has the burden of proof to show sufficiency of disclosure?
• The Board: " Referring to T 585/92 the respondent [opponent] argued that in appeal, after the Opposition Division had revoked the patent, the burden of proof was shifted to the appellant [patentee] to prove that the decision was wrong. However, the primary aim of appeal proceedings is to review the decision under appeal on the basis of the submissions and requests of the parties. This clearly encompasses the review of the Opposition Division's reasoning, in particular the assessment of the respondent's [opponent's] objections considered in the decision. If the reasoning as such is found to be wrong, there cannot be any shift of the burden of proof on the substance. " 
• The OD has conflated clarity and sufficiency, according to the Board. The parties did not dispute that there was a variability in the measurement of the sieving coefficient recited in claim 1.  
• " Clarity [] and sufficiency of disclosure [] are two distinct requirements of the EPC, as reaffirmed in recent case law []. In the present case, the technical problem which the invention aims to solve is how to improve the effectiveness of a blood treatment by providing a membrane [of product claim 1]. The Board does not see how [] a potential lack of clarity deriving from the claim definition of the sieving coefficient in the presence of whole blood could have a major impact on implementing a membrane which solves that specific problem. Hence, using the wording of T 608/07, with which the Board concurs, such a potential lack of clarity would not deprive the skilled person of the promise of the invention, and would not result in insufficiency of disclosure. As far as lack of clarity is concerned, it is not a ground for opposition." 

EPO T 1608/13 - link

The membrane according to the invention is characterised by parameters expressing its permeability for molecules of a certain molecular weight, in the presence of whole blood and water respectively.

3. In the impugned decision, the Opposition Division held that the invention as defined in claim 1 of the patent as granted was not sufficiently disclosed, mainly for two reasons (point 3 of the reasons): the patent did not provide sufficient information to enable the skilled person to determine the parameters defined in claim 1 and example 1, and the invention could not "be worked over the whole range claimed". The respondent endorsed the Opposition Division's view and provided supporting arguments.

3.1 Referring to T 585/92 the respondent argued that in appeal, after the Opposition Division had revoked the patent, the burden of proof was shifted to the appellant to prove that the decision was wrong. However, the primary aim of appeal proceedings is to review the decision under appeal on the basis of the submissions and requests of the parties. This clearly encompasses the review of the Opposition Division's reasoning, in particular the assessment of the respondent's objections considered in the decision. If the reasoning as such is found to be wrong, there cannot be any shift of the burden of proof on the substance. As regards the latter, it is established jurisprudence that a successful objection of lack of sufficiency presupposes that there are serious doubts substantiated by verifiable facts (T 967/09 and other cases cited in Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office, 8th edition 2016, III.G.5.5.2.2). It is primarily the respondent's duty to provide such facts in support of its objections.

T 2238/15 - Refusing witness

Key points

• The OD had refused a request of an opponent to hear a witness in order to further substantiate the alleged public prior use. 
• The Board considers this incorrect, and also deems this to be a substantial procedural violation. The impugned decison is set aside and remitted.
• The Board: (informal translation) " Contrary to what is stated in the contested decision, the facts to be assessed need not first be established with the help of the witnesses and, for the first time, brought into the proceedings. The subject of prior use was set out by submitting photos [and ]the design drawing. It would only be necessary to verify the claim that in the period from the transfer of the vehicle and the photos  no structural changes were made to the vehicle and that the vehicle was originally equipped with a tarp according to [the drawing]. To this end, the witnesses have been named. Precisely because the opponent has substantiated that the subject-matter of the prior use discloses all the features of granted claim 1, it would have been the task of the opposition division to obtain the offered evidence by interrogation of the witnesses." 
• Furthermore, about late-filed arguments: "The EPC makes a clear distinction between "facts and evidence" on the one hand and "arguments" on the other hand (see T 92/92, point 2: comparing the English versions of Article 114 (1) EPC and Article 114 (2) EPC). There is no basis for not admitting arguments, even late-filed, into the proceedings. The discretion conferred by Article 114 (2) EPC to disregard late-filed facts and evidence is not applicable to arguments, even if those arguments are submitted belatedly."

EPO T 2238/15 - link

Entscheidungsgründe

1. Die Beschwerde ist zulässig.

2. Wesentlicher Verfahrensmangel

2.1 Nach Meinung der Einspruchsabteilung fehlten der Einspruchsschrift mehrere der zum Nachweis der behaupteten öffentlichen Vorbenutzung zu klärenden Sachverhalte, mit denen Zeitpunkt und Gegenstand der Benutzung sowie die Umstände der Benutzungshandlung zu klären sind. Die durch Dokumente MB 1.1 bis 1.13 beschriebene offenkundige Vorbenutzung sei deshalb nicht ausreichend bewiesen.

T 1180/14 - Essential features

Key points

• In this examination appeal, the Board assess whether the claim recites all essential features, as required under Article 84.
• The Board recalls established case law. " An independent claim should explicitly specify all of the essential features needed to define the invention in order to comply with the provisions of Article 84 EPC [and] Rule 43(1)(a) EPC . [E]ssential features are those features which are necessary to obtain the desired effect or to solve the technical problem with which the application is concerned" 
• " The appellant further argued, referring to recent decision T2131/12 of 20 March 2018, that a claim lacked the essential features of an invention only if the technical problem as defined in the respective description could not be solved without such features and if such features were considered to be essential for carrying out the invention." 
• " The board is not persuaded by this argument either. [In] decision T2131/12, the deciding board held that, irrespective of whether or not the relevant feature itself was derivable from the application documents, it could not deduce any hint that the feature concerned was indeed essential for carrying out the invention [.] However, this board follows the conclusions of T32/82 and T2001/12 that essential features are features which are necessary to "obtain the desired effect" and to "solve the technical problem with which the application is concerned, rather than features considered to be necessary "to carry out the invention", as set out in T2131/12 [.] The board believes that the latter definition is more related to the issue of sufficiency of disclosure (Article 83 EPC 1973) than to the issue of clarity of a claim (Article 84 EPC 1973)." 

EPO T 1180/14 - link

2.1 Lack of essential features (Article 84 EPC 1973)

2.1.1 An independent claim should explicitly specify all of the essential features needed to define the invention in order to comply with the provisions of Article 84 EPC 1973 in combination with Rule 29(1)(a) EPC 1973, now Rule 43(1)(a) EPC (cf. G 2/88, OJ EPO 1990, 93, Reasons 2.5; G 1/04, OJ EPO 2006, 334, Reasons 6.2). According to the jurisprudence of the Boards of Appeal, essential features are those features which are necessary to obtain the desired effect or to solve the technical problem with which the application is concerned (see e.g. T 32/82, OJ EPO 1984, 354, Reasons 15; T 2001/12 of 29 January 2015, Catchword a).

T 2131/12 - Essential features according to description

Key points

• In this examination appeal, the application was refused because claim 1 would lack essential features, violating A84. But when are features essential?
• The Board, in informal translation: 'When examining the requirement of Article 84 EPC, it must therefore initially be assumed that the combination of features formulated by the applicant as an independent claim are the 'essential features' of the invention. On the other hand, the incorporation of one or more features from the description may be required if, for example, the technical problem indicated in the description is not solved by the claimed subject matter without the specification of these features. "

EPO T 2131/12  - link

Entscheidungsgründe

1. Der Zurückweisungsgrund

1.1 Die Prüfungsabteilung begründete die Zurückweisung der Anmeldung damit, dass aufgrund des Fehlens eines wesentlichen technischen Merkmals der Anspruch 1 jedes ihr vorliegenden Antrags nicht klar sei und daher das Erfordernis des Artikels 84 EPÜ nicht erfülle (vgl. Punkt II oben).

1.2 Gemäß Artikel 84 EPÜ geben die Ansprüche den Gegenstand an, für den Schutz begehrt wird (1. Satz). Sie müssen deutlich, knapp gefasst und von der Beschreibung gestützt sein (2. Satz). Der Gegenstand des Schutzbegehrens ist durch Angabe der technischen Merkmale der Erfindung anzugeben (Regel 43 (1) a) und b) EPÜ). Die Ansprüche bestimmen somit den Gegenstand, wofür Schutz begehrt wird und anhand dessen die Patentierbarkeit, d.h. Neuheit und erfinderische Tätigkeit beurteilt wird. Die Ansprüche müssen daher nicht nur hinsichtlich der Bedeutung des Wortlauts, sondern auch des Zwecks, den zu schützenden Gegenstand so zu definieren, dass eine der Erfindung zugrundeliegende technische Aufgabe gelöst wird, klar sein. Dieses Erfordernis ist in der Regel 43 (3) EPÜ als Annahme formuliert, wonach ein (unabhängiger) Anspruch "die wesentlichen Merkmale der Erfindung wiedergibt".

Bei der Prüfung des Erfordernisses des Artikels 84 EPÜ ist daher zunächst davon auszugehen, dass diejenige Kombination von Merkmalen, die vom Anmelder als unabhängiger Anspruch formuliert ist, die "wesentlichen Merkmale" der Erfindung sind. Umgekehrt bedeutet dies, dass Merkmale, die der Anmelder nicht in einen unabhängigen Anspruch aufgenommen hat, nicht ohne weiteres als "wesentlichen Merkmale" der Erfindung anzusehen sind. Andererseits kann die Aufnahme eines oder mehrerer Merkmale aus der Beschreibung dann erforderlich sein, wenn beispielsweise die in der Beschreibung angegebene technische Aufgabe durch den beanspruchten Gegenstand ohne die Angabe dieser Merkmale nicht gelöst werden kann.

1.3 Die Prüfungsrichtlinien (Ausgabe November 2017, F-IV, 4.5.2) definieren als "wesentliche Merkmale" diejenigen Merkmale, die zur Erzielung einer technischen Wirkung erforderlich sind, mit der die der Anmeldung zugrunde liegende technische Aufgabe gelöst wird. Daher sollen die unabhängigen Ansprüche "alle Merkmale enthalten, die in der Beschreibung ausdrücklich als zur Ausführung der Erfindung notwendig angegeben sind". Eine auf Artikel 84 EPÜ gestützte Forderung der Prüfungsabteilung nach Aufnahme weiterer als "wesentlich" erachteter Merkmale in einen Anspruch sollte demnach nicht im freien Belieben der Prüfungsabteilung stehen, sondern sich auf Angaben in der Beschreibung der Anmeldung, aus denen sich die Wesentlichkeit des Merkmals ergibt, stützen ("ausdrücklich als zur Ausführung der Erfindung notwendig angegeben").

Die Kammer ist der Auffassung, dass im vorliegenden Fall die Frage, ob das betreffende Merkmal für die Erfindung wesentlich ist oder nicht, anhand von Angaben in der Beschreibung zu beurteilen ist.

1.4 Im vorliegenden Fall hat die Prüfungsabteilung die Wesentlichkeit nicht anhand konkreter Angaben aus der Beschreibung belegt. Vielmehr beruht der Einwand, das Merkmal, wonach mittels der im Identifikationsmodul vorhandenen ersten Schnittstelle Daten vom Lokationstag ausgelesen werden und diese Daten über die zweite Schnittstelle an die Zentraleinheit im Kommunikationsnetz übertragen werden, sei wesentlich für die Erfindung und durch sein Weglassen fehle es dem Anspruch 1 an Klarheit, nur auf der eigenen, nicht weiter belegten Einschätzung der Prüfungsabteilung.

1.5 Ungeachtet der Frage, ob das von der Prüfungsabteilung als wesentlich erachtete Merkmal (siehe oben) selbst überhaupt aus den Anmeldungsunterlagen zu entnehmen ist, kann die Kammer den Anmeldungsunterlagen keinen Hinweis darauf entnehmen, dass dieses Merkmal wesentlich für die Ausführung der Erfindung ist: Auf Einzelheiten der Übertragung von Daten wird in der Beschreibung nicht näher eingegangen.

1.6 Die Kammer kommt daher zu dem Schluss, dass das von der Prüfungsabteilung als wesentlich erachtete Merkmal nicht für die Ausführung der Erfindung wesentlich ist. Demzufolge teilt die Kammer auch nicht die Schlussfolgerung der Prüfungsabteilung, dass das Fehlen dieses Merkmals im Anspruch 1 eine Unklarheit im Sinne des Artikels 84 EPÜ herbeiführt.

1.7 Die angefochtene Entscheidung ist daher aufzuheben.

T 1271/13 - Consisting essentially of, and basis

Key points

• "[The] board cannot endorse [patentee's] argument that, in accordance with decision T 472/88, the original term "comprising" did, in itself, provide a sufficient basis for the amended wording "consisting essentially of". " 
• Edit 16.07: now with the correct case number T 1271/13. 

EPO T 1271/13  -  link

2.2 It is undisputed that the wording "consisting essentially of" is not explicitly present in application as filed. Consequently, it has to be established whether or not the original application contains an implicit but unambiguous disclosure of these features.

Following the jurisprudence of the boards of appeal, the terminology "consisting essentially of" in claim 1 has a particular meaning and is to be understood in the sense that, apart from the components (i), (ii) and (iii) explicitly listed, only certain types and amounts of other components may be present in the resin composition that do not materially affect the essential characteristics of the composition (cf. for example T 472/88, Reasons 3 and T 759/10, Reasons 3.2). Already in view of this understanding, the board cannot endorse appellant I's argument that, in accordance with decision T 472/88, the original term "comprising" did, in itself, provide a sufficient basis for the amended wording "consisting essentially of". 

Moreover, it has to be taken into account that in the light of the Enlarged Board's jurisprudence in cases G 2/98 (OJ EPO 2001, 413) and G 1/03 (OJ EPO 2004, 413), which established the criterion of a direct and unambiguous disclosure, the case law of the boards of appeal on added subject-matter has developed further and that today it is settled that the term "comprising" is not generally accepted as a direct and unambiguous basis for an amendment to "consisting essentially of" (for a comprehensive summary of the development of the boards' case law on this issue see decision T 759/10, Reasons 5).

As an alternative line of argument, appellant I puts forward that the application as filed (cf. page 41, lines 10 to 16), in fact, disclosed not only the explicitly claimed components (i) to (iii), but also a fourth component in the form of blending polymers, which justified the wording "consisting essentially of" as interpreted by the boards of appeal. In this regard, the board observes that according to the generally accepted understanding of the wording "consisting essentially of", the possible fourth or further unnamed components must not materially affect the essential characteristics of the polypropylene-based resin composition. This criterion is not fulfilled even if the blending polymers were considered a fourth component, since it is exactly the purpose of blending polymers to alter the characteristics of the resin composition. Consequently, the board endorses not only the opposition division's finding that the original application does not contain a fourth component different from components (i) to (iii), which does not materially affect the essential characteristics of the polypropylene-based resin composition, but also its conclusion that a direct and unambiguous basis for the amended wording "consisting essentially of" is not apparent in the original application.

For these reasons, the subject-matter of claim 7 of the main request goes beyond the content of the application as filed, Article 100(c) EPC 1973.

T 0156/15 - No need for former Board members

Key points

• The Board expresses in a headnote that it does not need declarations of former Board members about legal matters such as art. 76 EPC.
• Requests submitted during oral proceedings, after the Chairman of the Board announces that the higher ranking requests are not allowable, should not be admitted, even without considering prima facie allowability.

EPO Headnote
1. Expert evidence tends to assist the boards in matters which lie outside their own expertise. However, the opinion of a former board member submitted as expert evidence on the application of Article 76 EPC to the facts of the case cannot add any evidential value to the party's submissions. Indeed, if a Board were swayed on such a matter by the fact that submissions had been made by a former board member, however eminent that person might be, it would attach undue weight to the individual making the argument rather than focus on the argument itself (see point 1.2.3).   
2. The appellant-patent proprietor filed auxiliary request 19 after the Chairman had announced the results of the Board's deliberation on the main request and auxiliary requests 1 to 18, and filed auxiliary request 20 after the Chairman had announced the result of the Board's deliberation on auxiliary request 19.
By its behaviour, the appellant-patent proprietor is, as a matter of fact, adjusting its strategy to the results of the Board's deliberation, which puts the appellant-opponent in a position where it is difficult to react.
In deciding on the admission of such late-filed requests, respect for the principle of fairness of the procedure might make it immediately apparent that these requests should not be admitted, even without also considering specific criteria for the exercise of the Board's discretion such as prima facie allowability (see points 1.3.5 and 1.3.6).






EPO T 0156/15 - link

T 0030/16 - Contribution to the art

Key points

• In this examination appeal, the Board assesses whether the claim complies with A84 in that all essential features are specified.
• The Board first recalls established case law " It is established case law that, [under A84 EPC], an independent claim must indicate all the essential features of the object of the invention [.] In this respect, "the essential features" is considered to mean all the features which are necessary to obtain the desired effect or, in other words, which are necessary to solve the technical problem with which the application is concerned"  " Further, the requirements of Article 84 EPC reflect the general legal principle that the extent of the monopoly conferred by a patent, as defined in the claims, should correspond to the invention's technical contribution to the art []. This means that the technical contribution of an invention does not lie in the fact that the problem is solved, but rather in the combination of features by which it is solved, i.e. in the features necessary to solve the technical problem underlying the invention." 
• The Board takes a rather unusual approach in this case. " As explained in the declaration by Mr Mir [one of the inventors in the present case] submitted in the examination proceedings, the filtration module according to the invention is set up as a single-pass tangential flow module without a recirculation loop and its specific feed flow rate must be adjusted to less than 200 lmh. These features, identified as essential to the performance of the invention by one of the inventors, are now reflected by the subject-matter of independent claims 1 and 10." 
• As a comment, such a use of Inventor's Declarations (also against the applicant?) to assess allowability of claims, seems to something that is more typical for the USPTO.

EPO T 0030/16 -  link

2. Main request - Article 84 EPC

2.1 It is established case law that, in order to comply with the requirements of Article 84 EPC, an independent claim must indicate all the essential features of the object of the invention (see G 2/88, point 2.5 of the Reasons, and G 1/04, point 6.2 of the Reasons; see also Case Law of the Boards of Appeal, 8th ed. 2016, II.A.3.2). In this respect, "the essential features" is considered to mean all the features which are necessary to obtain the desired effect or, in other words, which are necessary to solve the technical problem with which the application is concerned (see in particular T 32/82, point 15 of the Reasons).

Further, the requirements of Article 84 EPC reflect the general legal principle that the extent of the monopoly conferred by a patent, as defined in the claims, should correspond to the invention's technical contribution to the art (see T 409/91, point 3.3 of the Reasons). This means that the technical contribution of an invention does not lie in the fact that the problem is solved, but rather in the combination of features by which it is solved, i.e. in the features necessary to solve the technical problem underlying the invention.

2.2 In the present case, the problem underlying the invention is defined on page 6, lines 1 to 3, of the application as filed as being the provision of a single-pass filtration process providing high conversion with a relatively low hold-up volume.

2.3 As explained in the declaration by Mr Mir (one of the inventors in the present case) submitted in the examination proceedings, the filtration module according to the invention is set up as a single-pass tangential flow module without a recirculation loop and its specific feed flow rate must be adjusted to less than 200 lmh.

These features, identified as essential to the performance of the invention by one of the inventors, are now reflected by the subject-matter of independent claims 1 and 10.

2.4 The claimed subject-matter has been further limited to a specific type of membrane, namely a flat-type membrane, so that claim 1 can no longer be held to be broader than justified, as alleged by the examining division.

2.5 It follows from the above considerations that the claimed subject-matter now corresponds to the invention's technical contribution to the art, as it should according to T 409/91 (see point 2.1 above), so that the specific requirement of Article 84 EPC that the claims be supported by the description is fulfilled.

3. Since the reasons that led to the refusal of the application no longer apply, the board exercises its discretion under Article 111(1) EPC and remits the case to the examining division for further prosecution.

Order

T 2132/16 - No need for UK experts

Key points

• This is an opposition appeal about an actually rather interesting invention, about a prenatal test using circulating DNA (using a blood sample from the pregnant mother). The opposition appeal seems to have been a hard fight. Litigation is running in parallel in the UK. That brings me to the two paragraphs of the Board's decision I am going to quote: don't use UK experts testimony about inventive step as the patentee did in this case. The Boards consider themselves entirely competent to assess the technology at issue. 
• " [D70 and D8] are extracts from a transcript of the cross-examination of two technical experts called by the claimants in the UK litigation, among which was the present appellant I [patentee]. [D74 and D79 are written reports by two technical experts called by the present appellant III [opponent] in the UK litigation. These four documents contain the opinion of different technical experts on various issues relating to inventive step, in particular the interpretation of the content of [D6], and the knowledge and ideas of a skilled team in the relevant technical fields[]."  
• " It should be noted that, while in the UK litigation procedure technical experts are regularly called by the parties to provide technical assistance to the judge, the composition of the Technical Boards of Appeal includes at least two technically qualified members who are themselves able to assess technical facts. In the present case, the board considers itself in the position to decide upon the matter without the further technical assistance provided by the experts who gave evidence in UK litigation." 

EPO T 2132/16 - link

IV. Claim 1 according to auxiliary request 1 reads as follows:
"1. A method for performing prenatal diagnosis of a fetal chromosomal aneuploidy in a biological sample obtained from a female subject pregnant with a fetus, wherein the biological sample is maternal plasma or serum and wherein the sample includes cell-free nucleic acid molecules from the female subject and the fetus, the method comprising:
performing a random sequencing on at least a portion of a plurality of the nucleic acid molecules contained in the biological sample to obtain a pre-determined number of sequences, wherein the sequences represent a fraction of the human genome;
aligning, with a computer system, each sequence to a human genome;
determining a first amount of sequences identified as being aligned to a first chromosome;
determining a second amount of sequences identified as being aligned to one or more second chromosomes;
determining a parameter from the first amount and the second amount; wherein the parameter represents a relative amount between the first and second amounts; and
comparing the parameter to one or more cutoff values, to determine a classification of whether a fetal chromosomal aneuploidy exists for the first chromosome."

XII. Oral proceedings were held on 12 September 2017. During the oral proceedings, appellant I [patentee] withdrew its request to set aside the decision under appeal and maintain the patent as granted, and requested dismissal of the appeals of appellants II and III [opponent].