T 1024/15 - Novelty only

Key points

• In this opposition appeal, the opponent was the appellant. The opponent had only addressed lack of novelty in the Statement of grounds (only over D9, a US patent application), not lack of inventive step.
• " It was brought to the attention of the appellant that mere reference to the notice of opposition did not mean that the facts, arguments and evidence presented in this notice formed part of the appeal proceedings. The appellant did not comment or provide any further arguments.
• The present decision is thus limited to an assessment of novelty of claims 1, 4 and 9 of the patent as granted in view of [D9]  as set out in the appellant's statement of grounds for appeal."
• The Board finds the claims at issue to be novel over D9 and the appeal is dismissed. The Board does not consider whether the distinguishing feature provides any technical effect or is obvious.

EPO T 1024/15 - link

Reasons for the Decision

3. In accordance with Article 12(2) RPBA, the statement of grounds of appeal (and the reply) shall contain a party's complete case. The appellant's statement of grounds of appeal specified solely arguments concerning issues of novelty of granted claims 1, 4 and 9 in view of a single document, document (9).

With the communication pursuant to Article 15(1) RPBA, annexed to the summons to oral proceedings dated 21 September 2018, it was brought to the attention of the appellant that mere reference to the notice of opposition did not mean that the facts, arguments and evidence presented in this notice formed part of the appeal proceedings. The appellant did not comment or provide any further arguments.

The present decision is thus limited to an assessment of novelty of claims 1, 4 and 9 of the patent as granted in view of document (9) as set out in the appellant's statement of grounds for appeal.