T 0178/16 - What is a fresh ground; are grounds facts?

 Key points

• Let me first emphasize that it's good the EPO provides for judicial review by panels capable of dealing with complex technology as in the present patent. However, this post is about the procedural aspects of the case.

• If the OD decides not to admit a new ground of opposition (namely, insufficient disclosure), is this ground a 'fresh ground' in the sense of G 10/91 that may only be considered with the consent of the patentee, according to G10/91?
• The present Board first summarizes case law and then leaves open the question: “According to decision G 10/91 [] fresh grounds for opposition may be considered in appeal proceedings only with the approval of the patent proprietor. According to G 7/95 [] the term "a fresh ground for opposition" [] must be interpreted as having been intended to refer to a new legal basis for objecting to the maintenance of the patent, which was not both raised and substantiated in the notice of opposition, and which was not introduced into the proceedings by the Opposition Division []. The Boards in [ T 0620/08 and T 0986/93] considered the term "fresh ground" somewhat differently as a ground which is relied upon for the first time in appeal proceedings. A Board of Appeal was at least not barred from considering a ground for opposition not raised and substantiated within the nine month period but relied upon later during the opposition proceedings even without the consent of the patent proprietor if they were of the opinion that the Opposition Division had exercised their discretion in this respect wrongly.”
• The Board does not seem to find that the OD abused its discretion but still turns to the "at least not barred" leg of the test of T620/08. The Board finds that "at least not barred" means that the Board can admit the ground as a matter of discretion under Art. 12(4) RPBA 2007
• “The question whether or not the ground for opposition pursuant to Article 100(b) EPC is considered a fresh ground which can only be considered with the patent proprietor's approval does not, under the present circumstances, have to be decided, because the Board holds it [="the ground for opposition pursuant to Article 100(b) EPC"] inadmissible pursuant to Article 12(4) RPBA 2007.”
• “Even if a Board of Appeal is not barred from considering a ground for opposition not considered by the Opposition Division, they have the power to hold inadmissible facts, evidence or requests, which were not admitted in the first instance proceedings pursuant to Article 12(4) RPBA 2007”
• This quote as such is correct, but the link between a power to hold inadmissible "facts, evidence or requests" and the question of whether to consider a "ground for opposition" is not clear to me.
• As a comment,  apparently the phrase "facts, evidence or requests"  in Art. 12(4) RPBA 2007 includes "grounds of opposition" according to this Board because this Board holds the ground of opposition inadmissible under Art. 12(4) RPBA 2007. 
• As a further comment, Article 114(2) refers to late filed facts and evidence, not to late filed grounds, so I would need to look up which Article of the EPC is the legal basis for the holding of G 10/91.
• Of course, any new facts submitted as part of the new ground can be held inadmissible under the clear wording of Art. 114(2) EPC. 
  
  
  Review of decision to not admit
  
• The present Board: “As explained in G 10/91 [] the main criterion on which the discretionary decision [of the opposition division] is to be based is prima facie relevance. This is the criterion used by the Opposition Division in the present case. The Board observes that the statement of grounds of appeal does not contain any explanation as to why the Opposition Division exercised their discretion in a legally incorrect or unreasonable way, but instead only argues to the effect that the conclusion of the Opposition Division concerning the substance was not justified.”
• I fail to see how an opponent can assert prima facie relevance  of the late filed ground other than through arguing the substance of the ground of opposition. 

EPO T 0178/16 -  link

3. Admittance of the Ground for Opposition Pursuant to Article 100(b) EPC

3.1 The Board does not admit the ground for opposition pursuant to Article 100(b) EPC pursuant to Article 12(4) RPBA 2007, which is applicable by virtue of Article 25(2) RPBA 2020.

3.2 The ground for opposition under Article 100(b) EPC (sufficiency of disclosure) was not raised by the then opponents, now appellants, within the nine month period pursuant to Article 99 EPC and was not substantiated in the statement of grounds for opposition pursuant to Rule 76(2)(c) EPC. The Opposition Division considered they had a discretion not to consider this ground because it was not submitted in due time and not prima facie relevant. The appellants state that the Opposition Division should have admitted the objection and in the statement of grounds of appeal request that the Board consider the ground for opposition under Article 100(b) EPC.

T 1439/16 - Losing attack upon appeal

 Key points

• The patentee files an auxiliary request AR-6 after the summons but still six months before the oral proceedings. The request is admitted under Art.13(1) RPBA 2020 because it involves deleting independent claim 1 (and restricting to the second independent claim). " by deleting claim 1, the respondent has not introduced new subject-matter to be discussed but rather has reduced the disputed subject-matter, in particular resolving the issue of added subject-matter, so that the amendment is not at all detrimental to the procedural economy, but rather in its favour." 
• The Board does not admit the Art.123(2) attack against claim 7 of AR-6.
• " The Board does concur with the appellant [opponent] that, according to Article 12(2) [possibly Article 12(1) was intended] RPBA 2020, the appeal proceedings should be based on the appealed decision and that a decision was taken in opposition proceedings with respect to the objection of added subject-matter of the then claim 8, corresponding to present claim 7. However, as argued by the respondent [patentee], it is the appellant who defines the extent of the appeal and according to Article 12(3) RPBA 2020, which essentially corresponds to Article 12(2) RPBA 2007, the statement of grounds of appeal shall contain a party's complete case. It was the choice of the appellant to make an objection for added subject-matter only to claim 1 and not to claim 8 in the statement setting out the grounds of appeal []  while objecting to both claims for lack of inventive step [] thereof." 

EPO T 1439/16 - link

2. Admittance into the proceedings of auxiliary request 6

The appellant argues that auxiliary request 6 was filed after the summons to oral proceedings as a reaction to the communication of the Board and was thus filed late and should therefore not be admitted into the proceedings.

The Board concurs with the appellant that auxiliary request 6 has been filed late, since, according to Article 12(3) RPBA 2020, which essentially corresponds to Article 12(2) RPBA 2007, the respondent's complete case should have been submitted with the reply to the statement setting out the grounds of appeal.

However, amendments to a party's case filed after the summons to oral proceedings are not to be dismissed a priori, but their admittance is subject to the Board's discretion according to Article 13(1) RPBA 2020 and to the provisions of Article 13(3) RPBA 2007, in combination with Article 25(1) and (3) RPBA 2020.

In the present case, by deleting claim 1, the respondent has not introduced new subject-matter to be discussed but rather has reduced the disputed subject-matter, in particular resolving the issue of added subject-matter, so that the amendment is not at all detrimental to the procedural economy, but rather in its favour.

In view of the above the Board considers it appropriate to exercise its discretion by admitting auxiliary request 6 into the proceedings.

3. Admittance of the objection of added subject-matter, raised at the oral proceedings, for claim 7 of auxiliary request 6

T 2329/15 - Unusual but not exceptional

 Key points

• The applicant files an auxiliary request after the notification of the summons for oral proceedings. The admissibility is governed by the Art. 13(2) RPBA 2020 and requires exceptional circumstances. 
• “the representatives explained that the request was filed in response to the novelty objections raised in the communication accompanying the summons to oral proceedings. It had not been possible to file it earlier since the representatives had been unable to contact the appellant for months.” (the latter being unusual)
• The Board: “The appellant's lack of involvement in the prosecution of the present case, as unusual as it may be, can in the current case not be regarded as "exceptional circumstances" which may lead the Board to admit the filing of the new second auxiliary request after notification of the summons to oral proceedings. "Exceptional circumstances" generally concern new or unforeseen developments of the appeal proceedings themselves, such as new objections raised by the Board (or another party). In the present case, however, the novelty objection in view of D6 had already been raised by the Examining Division and formed part of the reasons for the impugned decision. Thus, whether or not the appellant's representatives were unable to liaise with their clients in the period between notification of the summons and the oral proceedings is of no relevance to the issue of admittance of the request into the proceedings.” 
• (typo corrected)
  

EPO T 2329/15 -  link

4. New second auxiliary request

4.1 The appellant explained that in order to remedy the raised novelty objection, amended claim 1 filed during oral proceedings was formulated as a purpose-related product claim in the sense of Article 54(5) EPC specifying a medical use otherwise excluded from patentability under Article 53(c) EPC. Claim 1 was no longer addressed at a device, but at a "composition" of first and second marker elements for use in a biopsy cavity marking device for identifying a subcutaneous biopsy cavity and for long-term follow-up of the subcutaneous biopsy cavity.

4.2 Article 13(2) RPBA 2020 specifies that any amendment to a party's case filed after notification of a summons to oral proceedings "shall, in principle, not be taken into account unless there are exceptional circumstances, which have been justified with cogent reasons by the party concerned".

4.3 When queried about the reasons justifying the late filing of the request during oral proceedings, the representatives explained that the request was filed in response to the novelty objections raised in the communication accompanying the summons to oral proceedings. It had not been possible to file it earlier since the representatives had been unable to contact the appellant for months.

4.4 The Board disagrees. The appellant's lack of involvement in the prosecution of the present case, as unusual as it may be, can in the current case not be regarded as "exceptional circumstances" which may lead the Board to admit the filing of the new second auxiliary request after notification of the summons to oral proceedings. "Exceptional circumstances" generally concern new or unforeseen developments of the appeal proceedings themselves, such as new objections raised by the Board (or another party). In the present case, however, the novelty objection in view of D6 had already been raised by the Examining Division and formed part of the reasons for the impugned decision. Thus, whether or not the appellant's representatives were unable to liaise with their clients in the period between notification of the summons and the oral proceedings is of no relevance to the issue of admittance of the request into the proceedings.

4.5 The Board, therefore, exercised its discretion under Article 13(2) RPBA 2020 not to admit the new second auxiliary request.

T 0534/17 - Youtube as prior art in opposition

 Key points

• In this opposition case, D1 is: "D1: DVD with the YouTube video "Carl Zeiss Scanning Technology", youtube.com/watch?=v=XqtVzAqWHFw, 29 June 2009, together with a screen dump of the video dated 7 May 2015 (document D1a), a printed sequence of pictures of the video starting at 4:59 (document D1b, 331 pages), and an affidavit by J. Lewis dated 18 June 2015"
• "The appellant [opponent, a Carl Zeiss entity] has also disputed the opposition division's finding that the subject-matter of claim 1 was new over the video shown in D1 [.] It has been undisputed on appeal that the video D1 was rendered available to the public before the priority date of the contested patent and that the video (see in particular the sequence starting at time 4:59 of the video and the corresponding screen shots shown in document D1b) displays the movement of a probe along a circumference of the inner cylindrical surface of a hollow object ...."
• The Board considers the claim to be novel because of some oblique off-set movement (if I understand it correctly). 
• The Board about inventive step over D1: "Therefore, the claimed method does achieve a technical effect and solves the objective technical problem of reducing the computational complexity in the processing of the measurement data. In addition, as noted by the respondent, there is no teaching provided by the video D1 as to the reasons for the offset movement shown in the video and the technical significance thereof, and the skilled person would have no motivation to consider modifications of the movements shown in the video."
• I didn't check the file to see how the patentee was provided with the Youtube movie and whether it was played during the oral proceedings before the Board. 

T 0534/17 - https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t170534eu1.html

T 0560/20 - Procedural violation ED

Key points

• An examination appeal with a clear substantial procedural violation.
•  " the reasons for the impugned decision are limited to the finding of lack of inventive step of the subject-matter of claim 1 of the main request on file in view of document D5 in combination with the common general knowledge." 
• " The board agrees with the appellant that the examining division had not raised this objection before. In its previous communications, document D5 had been cited as novelty-destroying, while the issue of inventive step had been discussed on the basis of document D1 or D2 in combination with document D3 or D4." 
• The decision is set aside, the case is remitted, and the appeal fee is reimbursed. 

EPO T 0560/20 -  link

1.2 In the case in hand, the reasons for the impugned decision are limited to the finding of lack of inventive step of the subject-matter of claim 1 of the main request on file in view of document D5 in combination with the common general knowledge. In the decision, the examining division essentially held that the subject-matter of claim 1 differs from document D5 in the thickness of the first membrane layer. As this difference is not related to any particular effect, the objective technical problem to be solved is the selection of an appropriate thickness. The skilled person would prepare a membrane with the claimed thickness without technical difficulties. The subject-matter of claim 1 is therefore not based on an inventive step.

1.3 The board agrees with the appellant that the examining division had not raised this objection before. In its previous communications, document D5 had been cited as novelty-destroying, while the issue of inventive step had been discussed on the basis of document D1 or D2 in combination with document D3 or D4.

In consequence, the appellant had no opportunity to present its comments on the sole ground on which the impugned division is based. This contravened the appellant's right to be heard enshrined in Article 113(1) EPC and constitutes a substantial procedural violation.

T 0188/16 - Substantive review decision not to admit

Key points

• The Board recalls that if the OD's decision not to admit an auxiliary request is based on the lack of compliance with Article 123(2), i.e. a substantive assessment, this substantive assessment must be fully reviewed in appeal.
• “ In diesem Fall hat die Beschwerdekammer im Rahmen von Artikel 12(4) VOBK 2007 in Verbindung mit Artikel 25 (2) VOBK 2020 die in die Ermessensentscheidung der Einspruchsabteilung eingeflossene materiellrechtliche Wertung zu überprüfen ”
• I think this case law still holds good under Art. 12(6)(s.1) RPBA 2020 because in such a case, checking whether the feature has basis in the application as filed, is the same as examining whether “the decision not to admit them suffered from an error in the use of discretion”.

EPO T 0188/16 -  link

6. Soweit die Beschwerdeführerin beantragt hat, den zweiten Hilfsantrag in das Verfahren zuzulassen, gilt Folgendes:

Der zweite Hilfsantrag wurde bereits nicht in das Einspruchsverfahren zugelassen, weil das geänderte Merkmal 3.2' nach der Auffassung der Einspruchsabteilung nicht den Erfordernissen des Artikels 123(2) EPÜ entsprach. Die Einspruchsabteilung hat ein Ermessen, verspätet vorgelegte Anträge nicht ins Verfahren zuzulassen. In diesem Fall hat die Beschwerdekammer im Rahmen von Artikel 12(4) VOBK 2007 in Verbindung mit Artikel 25 (2) VOBK 2020 die in die Ermessensentscheidung der Einspruchsabteilung eingeflossene materiellrechtliche Wertung zu überprüfen (vgl. Rechtsprechung der Beschwerdekammern, 9. Aufl., V. A. 3.5.1 c).

Die Beschwerdekammer kommt zu dem Ergebnis, dass das Merkmal M3.2' nicht ursprünglich offenbart war, auch nicht in dem ersten Absatz der Beschreibungsseite 5 in Zusammenhang mit der gesamten Offenbarung. Die Funktionsaufteilung zwischen erstem und zweitem Geräteteil 9 und 10 ist zwar offenbart, nicht aber eine Funktionsaufteilung innerhalb dieser Geräteteile, wie die Einspruchsabteilung zutreffend ausgeführt hat.

Somit hat die Einspruchsabteilung ihr Ermessen, den zweiten Hilfsantrag nicht in das Einspruchsverfahren zuzulassen, korrekt ausgeübt.

7. Die Beschwerdekammer hat deshalb entschieden, den zweiten Hilfsantrag ebenfalls nicht in das Verfahren zuzulassen.

8. Somit liegt kein gewährbarer Antrag vor.

Stauder/Luginbuhl EPU online

 The online 'Singer/Stauder' (or Singer/Stauder/Luginbühl') Europäisches Patentübereinkommen 8th edition 2019 is available online at Kluwer IP Law at 

https://www.kluweriplaw.com/book-toc?title=Europ%c3%a4isches+Patent%c3%bcbereinkommen%2c+8.Auflage 

T 0833/17 - Partial reimbursement appeal fee

 Key points

• Rule 103(4)(a) specifies that the appeal fee is reimbursed at 25% " if the appeal is withdrawn after expiry of the period under paragraph 3(a) but before the decision is announced at oral proceedings;"
• In this case, appellant 1 withdraws the appeal its appellant 2 withdraws its request for oral proceedings, the oral proceedings are cancelled.
• The Board: “Since, in the current case, no oral proceedings took place, the withdrawal also occurred before a decision could be announced at oral proceedings. Thus the requirements of Rule 103(4)(a) EPC are met and the appeal fee is to be reimbursed at 25%.”

EPO T 0833/17 - link

VIII. On 2 April 2020, the Board notified to the parties its preliminary opinion in a communication pursuant to Article 15(1) RPBA.

IX. By letter dated 20 July 2020, appellant 2 withdrew its request for oral proceedings. By letter dated 21 August 2020, appellant 1 withdrew its appeal and requested a reimbursement of its appeal fee. The oral proceedings were cancelled.

7. Refund of the appeal fee

By letter dated 21 August 2020, appellant 1 withdrew its appeal and requested a reimbursement of its appeal fee in accordance with Rule 103(4)(a) EPC.

Rule 103(4)(a) EPC, in its version as in force since 1 April 2020, provides for a reimbursement of the appeal fee at 25% if the appeal is withdrawn after expiry of the period under paragraph 3(a) - which was the case here - and before a decision was announced at the oral proceedings.

Since, in the current case, no oral proceedings took place, the withdrawal also occurred before a decision could be announced at oral proceedings. Thus the requirements of Rule 103(4)(a) EPC are met and the appeal fee is to be reimbursed at 25%.

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. 25% of appellant 1's appeal fee is to be reimbursed.

T 1255/17 - No attack admitted

 Key points

• The Board confirms the decision of the OD to not admit a PowerPoint filed during the oral proceedings under G 7/93. The PPT concerned additional evidence for the alleged public prior use. The OD had pointed out the deficiencies of the evidence on file the preliminary opinion. 
• The PPT was complex with 65 sheets including additional evidence.
• Moreover, the PPT presentation should have been announced in advance and a copy should have been given to the other parties in line with T 1122/01.
• It is not enough to say in the Notice of opposition that "If deemed necessary we will provide affidavits proving, for example, the dates and other information"
• The further evidence submitted with the Statement of grounds is not admitted under Art. 12(4) RPBA 2007.
• Further evidence filed in the course of the appeal procedure is not admitted under Art. 13(1) RPBA 2020.
• The alleged public prior use is deemed to be not substantiated (point 3.3). The Board does not indicate the legal provision being applied. I assume that the Board here confirms that the public prior use is not proven by the opponent for novelty and/or inventive step.
• The second and third alleged prior use filed with the Statement of grounds are not admitted.
• The evidence pertaining to the alleged novelty destroying lecture filed with the SoG is not admitted.
• The evidence pertaining to a second alleged novelty-destroying lecture filed one year after the SoG is not admitted.
• I note that the alleged disclosures were by a legal predecessor of the opponent, albeit  (now) 10 years ago.
• The opponent did not challenge the finding of the OD concerning lack of inventive step.
• Hence, the appeal is dismissed. 

EPO T 1255/17 - link

Decision text omitted.

T 2337/16 - Ratio decidendi

 Key points

• This is the second appeal after a remittal to the opposition division. The Board applies the rule in Article 111(2) that “If the Board of Appeal remits the case for further prosecution to the department whose decision was appealed, that department shall be bound by the ratio decidendi of the Board of Appeal, in so far as the facts are the same.”.
• This rule also applies in opposition, and the Board in the second appeal is also bound the ratio decidendi  of the earlier decision of the Board.
• After the remittal, the opponent had filed new prior art documents ED1 and ED2 in connection with inventive step. The patentee protests against this as this would circumvent Article 111(2) in their view.
• In the first appeal decision, the Board had admitted AR-7 and that the claim at issue was not obvious over D5 with common general knowledge, nor over D5 in combination with D3. The Board did not say that the claims were inventive and in fact remitted the case for examination of (novelty) and inventive step. 
•  The Board finds that there are therefore no ratio decidendi precluding the examination of the new inventive step attack based on ED1 with ED2. Moreover, the Board finds the claims to be obvious over said documents. 

EPOT 2337/16 -  link

5. Frühere Entscheidung T 1723/13 und Umfang der Bindungswirkung

Die Beschwerdeführerin II (Patentinhaberin) hat vorgetragen, die Einspruchsabteilung habe die Dokumente ED1 und ED2 zugelassen, um die Bindungswirkung der früheren Kammerentscheidung (vgl. Punkt I oben) zu umgehen. Vor diesem Hintergrund hält es die hier zuständige Kammer für angemessen, zum Umfang der Bindungswirkung der vorangegangenen Entscheidung T 1723/13 Stellung zu beziehen.

5.1 Nach Artikel 111(2) EPÜ ist das erstinstanzliche Organ bei einer Zurückverweisung zur weiteren Entscheidung an die rechtliche Beurteilung durch die Entscheidung einer Beschwerdekammer gebunden. Nach der Rechtsprechung besteht diese Bindung auch für die Beschwerdekammern selbst (auch "Selbstbindung" genannt), wenn die nach der Zurückverweisung ergangene erstinstanzliche Entscheidung abermals mit einer Beschwerde angefochten wird (siehe z.B. T 961/18, Gründe 4).

T 1032/16 - Onion is obviouss

 Key points

• G 3/19 decided basically that plants which are not genetically modified, are unpatentable (plants obtained with an essentially biological process) but only for applications having a priority date after 01.07.2017. Hence, the Board turns to inventive step in this case.
• “Claim 1, a product-by-process claim, is directed to a long-day onion plant producing bulbs which combine the properties "pyruvate of less than 5.5 µMol/g FW" and "SSC of at least 7.5%" at harvest, wherein the onion plant "is obtained by crossing a plant of which seeds were deposited under Accession No. PTA-9053, PTA-9054 or PTA-5 9055 with another onion plant"”
• “In the board's view, the feature that the claimed plants are obtainable by crossing a deposited onion plant with another onion plant is not a limitation to the immediate progeny of such a cross, but includes all plants having such a cross in their ancestry. Thus, the process feature is not construed as imparting any particular genotype to the claimed plants. Lower pungency upon storage is thus not a feature of the claimed onion plants. The board concludes that no additional identifiable phenotypic or genotypic characteristics are conferred on the long-day onion plant by the process of claim 1.”
• D1 discloses a long-day onion plant producing bulbs which combine the properties "pyruvate of less than 5.5 µMol/g FW" and "SSC of at least 7.5%" at harvest”. 
• " It was however uncontested that the genetics of the claimed onion plant differs from that of the hybrid onion plant of document D1, albeit in an unknown manner, see point 5." 
• There is some case law that unclear features can not be used to provide novelty, but that case law is not applied here.
• " the board agrees with the appellant that the problem to be solved by the claimed subject-matter can be formulated as the provision of a further long-day onion plant producing bulbs having low pungency and high SSC." 
• " Document D1 [] already establishes that combining traits of long-day onion plants (bulb formation after 14 hours of light, high storability, high SSC) with the low pungency trait of short-day onion plants in a single onion plant/bulb requires no more than standard plant breeding techniques" 
• Hence the claim is obvious.

T 1032/16 -  link

Inventive step (Article 56 EPC) - claim 1


Closest prior art

7. In the decision under appeal, document D1 was taken as representing the closest prior art for the claimed onion plants. This view was maintained by the appellant in the appeal and was not contested by the respondent. The board sees no reason to differ.

8. Document D1 discloses onion (Allium cepa) plants requiring 14 or more contiguous hours of daylight to initiate bulb formation, i.e. long-day onions, which produce bulbs having a pyruvic acid development (PAD) measurement of less than 5.5 myMol/g FW at harvest and whose bulbs can be stored without an increase of PAD measurements of more than 15% compared to the PAD measurement at the time of harvest (see paragraphs [0021], [0022], [0023] and [0053]). It is undisputed that document D1 does not explicitly disclose any SSC values.

9. However, document D1 does disclose hybrid plants whose parents were the long day onion plants WYL 77-5128B and WYL 77-5168B (see paragraph [0081]). WYL 77-5128B and WYL 77-5168 are long-day Spanish onion breeding lines, combining all the desired features of typical long-day Spanish onions with the additional feature of low pungency (see paragraphs [0087] and [0089]). Seeds of these inbred lines were deposited in accordance with the Budapest Treaty (see paragraphs [0088], [0089] and [00168] of document D1). The board concludes that the hybrid plants disclosed in paragraph [0081] are made available by document D1. The person skilled in the field of plant breeding is furthermore aware that a cross between these two inbred lines of document D1 always yields the same hybrid plant (see also document D10, paragraph bridging pages 1 and 2).

T 0686/18 - No pointers in the problem

 Key points

• This appeal deals with inventive step for a product claim, namely a polymeric material with holes, with as distinguishing feature basically that the amount of holes without a polymeric shell is less than 2%. 
• The Board has to determine the objective technical problem. The patent states that “Aufgabe der Erfindung ist es, eine geschäumte Polymermasse [...] zur Verfügung zu stellen, die frei ist von solchen Hohlräumen, die nicht durch Mikroballons erzeugt sind...”. 
• The problem (with the problem, indeed) is that this remark contains a pointer to the solution, which is not permitted under the PSA. The Board clarifies that therefore the objective technical problem has to be reformulated (I would say: has to be formulated differently than the problem stated in the patent; because the patent does not specify the objective technical problem).
  
• Hence, this is a second reason for 'reformulating'  the objective technical problem, besides the more common one of the distinguishing features not actually providing the advantages mentioned in the patent.
• The Board looks at further passages in the patent, formulates the objective technical problem as achieving improved mechanical properties, and finds the recited feature not to be an obvious solution such that the claimed subject-matter is inventive.

EPO T 0686/18 -  link

Anspruch 15

3.13 Die Parteien waren sich einig, dass D4 den nächstliegenden Stand der Technik für den Gegenstand von Anspruch 15 darstelle und dass sich die beanspruchte geschäumte Polymermasse von derjenigen gemäß D4 dadurch unterscheide, dass der Anteil an Kavernen ohne eigene Polymerhülle unterscheidet nicht mehr als 2 Vol.-% beträgt.

3.14 Die Beschwerdeführerin vertrat allerdings die Meinung, dass D4 bereits lehre, die Ausgangsmaterialien zu entgasen und damit zwangsläufig auch die Bildung von Luftkavernen durch Entgasung zu verhindern. Die Auswahl des im Anspruch 15 definierten Anteils an Luftkavernen sei mit keinem technischen Effekt verbunden und deswegen naheliegend. Außerdem machte die Beschwerdeführerin geltend, dass Anspruch 15 lediglich angebe, was gemäß Absatz [0008] des Streitpatents das zu erzielende Ergebnis sei. Die Lösung dieser Aufgabe könne nicht auf einer erfinderischen Tätigkeit beruhen.

T 0822/16 - Reformatio in peius

 Key points

• The Board recalls that the prohibition of reformatio in peius also applies if one of the two appellants (patentee and opponent) withdraws its appeal.
• In this case, the opponent withdraws the appeal. The amended claims of the claims that were held allowable by the OD are not examined by the Board. 

EPO T 0822/16 - link

2. Da die Einsprechende 2 ihre Beschwerde zurückgenommen hat, ist die Patentinhaberin als alleinige Beschwerdeführerin im Verfahren verblieben. Daher ist die Kammer nach dem Verbot von reformatio in peius nicht befugt, Anträge im Verfahren zu prüfen, die die Position der Patentinhaberin verschlechtern würden.


Somit darf im vorliegenden Fall nur die Gewährbarkeit des Hauptantrags und der Hilfsanträge 1 und 2 geprüft werden.

epi Committee elections reopened

The elections for some epi Committees has  re-opened

New deadline 23 October 2020 for:

• the By-Laws Committee, 
• the Editorial Committee, 
• the epi-Finances Committee, 
• the EPO Finances Committee, 
• the IP Commercialization Committee 
• the Online Communication Committee.

T 0752/16 - Change of preliminary opinion Board

 Key points

• It's established case law that a change of the opinion of the Board, from favorable to the patentee to unfavorable, does not justify the filing of new requests if the Board does not raise a completely new objection but adopts one of the objections raised earlier by the opponent.
• The present Board confirms this under Article 13(2) RPBA 2020
• “Eine Änderung der vorläufigen Meinung der Kammer zu einem bestimmten Einspruchsgrund stellt keinen "außergewöhnlichen Umstand" im Sinne von Artikel 13(2) VOBK 2020 dar” (headnote).
  
• In other words, the patentee should not wait for the Board with filing any appropriate auxiliary requests. “Mit anderen Worten kann ein Patentinhaber nicht so lange Änderungen als Reaktion auf die vorgebrachten Einwände eines Einsprechenden zurückhalten bis er sich mit einer für ihn negativen vorläufigen Meinung einer Beschwerdekammer konfrontiert sieht bzw. den Eindruck gewinnt, dass die Kammer nicht seiner Ansicht und Argumentation folgt”

T 0752/16 -  link

3. Hilfsanträge 1, 1A, 1B, 2 und 3 - Zulassung

3.1 Im vorliegenden Fall wurden die Hilfsanträge 1, 1A, 1B, 2 und 3 nach der Zustellung der Ladung zur mündlichen Verhandlung vom 9. Juni 2020 eingereicht. Ihre Zulassung in das Beschwerdeverfahren unterliegt daher Artikel 13(2) der Verfahrensordnung der Beschwerdekammern 2020 (VOBK 2020), welche zum 1. Januar 2020 in Kraft trat (siehe Artikel 24 und 25 VOBK 2020).


3.2 Gemäß Artikel 13(2) VOBK 2020 bleiben Änderungen des Beschwerdevorbringens eines Beteiligten nach Zustellung der Ladung zur mündlichen Verhandlung grundsätzlich unberücksichtigt, es sei denn, der Beteiligte hat stichhaltige Gründe dafür aufgezeigt, dass "außergewöhnliche Umstände" vorliegen. Bei der Anwendung von Artikel 13(2) VOBK 2020 können wiederum die Kriterien von Artikel 13(1) VOBK 2020 herangezogen werden (siehe z.B. T 989/15, Gründe 16.2). Eines dieser Kriterien bezieht sich im Falle von Patentänderungen auf die Prüfung, ob die Änderungen bereits aufgeworfene Fragen ausräumen und hierbei keinen Anlass zu neuen Einwänden geben.



3.3 Die Beschwerdegegnerin machte geltend, dass die Kammer ihre vorläufige Meinung mit ihrer zweiten Ladung vom 9. Juni 2020 revidiert hätte (siehe Punkt V oben). Die Hilfsanträge 1 bis 3 würden den beanspruchten Gegenstand durch die Anwendung auf eine "Verlaufskurve mit nur einem Minimum" beschränken. Gemäß Anspruch 1 der Hilfsanträge 1A und 1B weise die Verlaufskurve nun "genau ein Minimum" auf.

3.4 Nach Ansicht der Kammer ist es im Hinblick auf Artikel 13(2) VOBK 2020 unerheblich, ob die in der Mitteilung nach Artikel 15(1) VOBK 2020 geäußerte vorläufige Meinung der Kammer von einer vorherigen Stellungnahme oder der angefochtenen Entscheidung abweicht. Mit einer für die Beteiligten ungünstigen vorläufigen Meinung kann jederzeit in den Verfahren vor den Beschwerdekammern vor Verkündung der Entscheidung prinzipiell gerechnet werden. In diesem Zusammenhang ruft die Kammer in Erinnerung, dass die Mitteilung einer vorläufigen Meinung nach Artikel 15(1) VOBK 2020 primär den Rahmen einer anberaumten mündlichen Verhandlung absteckende und eine die effiziente Vorbereitung der Beteiligten auf diese Verhandlung erleichternde Verfahrensmaßnahme darstellt und keine "Einladung" zu weiteren Änderungen in Reaktion hierauf impliziert (siehe z.B. T 1459/11, Gründe 3.2). Mit anderen Worten kann ein Patentinhaber nicht so lange Änderungen als Reaktion auf die vorgebrachten Einwände eines Einsprechenden zurückhalten bis er sich mit einer für ihn negativen vorläufigen Meinung einer Beschwerdekammer konfrontiert sieht bzw. den Eindruck gewinnt, dass die Kammer nicht seiner Ansicht und Argumentation folgt (siehe z.B. T 136/16, Gründe 3.2.2; T 2072/16, Gründe 4.1.7).

3.5 Im vorliegenden Fall basierte die vorläufige Meinung der Kammer auf bereits in der Beschwerdebegründung der Beschwerdeführerin genannten Einwänden und Argumentationslinien. Insbesondere wurde dort das Argument ausgeführt, dass ein Dosier-Scan über das relative Minimum hinaus unnötig sei und keinen weiteren Erkenntnisgewinn liefere, welcher für das Verfahren von Anspruch 1 relevant sei (siehe Seite 8, zweiter und dritter Absatz).

Die Beschwerdegegnerin hätte daher bereits mit ihrer Beschwerdeerwiderung auf die Einwände der Beschwerdeführerin reagieren und gegebenenfalls Ansprüche einreichen sollen, die den Einwänden der Beschwerdeführerin Rechnung tragen.

3.6 Die Kammer erachtet daher die von der Beschwerdegegnerin vorgebrachten Gründe als nicht stichhaltig bzw. sie erkennt keine "außergewöhnlichen Umstände" im Sinne des Artikels 13(2) VOBK 2020, welche die verspätete Vorlage der Hilfsanträge rechtfertigen.

3.7 Im Übrigen ist die Kammer in der Sache nicht überzeugt, dass die Hilfsanträge 1, 1A, 1B, 2 und 3 so verstanden werden können, dass sie das Verfahren auf die Anwendung auf Verlaufskurven mit genau einem Minimum beschränken. Die Kammer stimmt der Beschwerdegegnerin darin zu, dass die hinzugefügten Merkmale einen Fremdbezug beinhalten. Sie beschränken vermeintlich das beanspruchte Verfahren durch einen Bezug auf das zu behandelnde Fluid, welches jedoch nicht Teil des Verfahrens ist (siehe Schreiben der Beschwerdeführerin vom 24. August 2020, Punkt 3.1).

Damit geben die Änderungen Anlass zu neuen Einwänden. Sie sind somit auch der Verfahrensökonomie abträglich (Artikel 13(1) VOBK 2020).

3.8 Die Hilfsanträge 1, 1A, 1B, 2 und 3 wurden daher nicht in das Beschwerdeverfahren zugelassen (Artikel 13(1) und (2) VOBK 2020).

4. Da keine zulässigen bzw. gewährbaren Anspruchssätze vorliegen, ist das Streitpatent zu widerrufen.

Entscheidungsformel

Aus diesen Gründen wird entschieden:

1. Die angefochtene Entscheidung wird aufgehoben.

2. Das Patent wird widerrufen.

T 1154/16 - The broader, general, field of polyurethanes in dynamic mechanical applications

Key points

• In this opposition appeal, one of the questions under inventive step is whether the skilled person would have consulted the secondary documents D9 and D19.
• “The patent proprietor has argued that the skilled person would not consider documents D9 or D19 as they do not relate to the same technical field as the contested patent, i.e. shoe press belts for papermaking and do not address the same technical problem.”
• “The opponent has argued that the skilled person would have been aware of documents D9 and D19 and would consider their disclosure as they form part of the state of the art in a non-specific general field [...]”
• “ The Board finds that the disclosures of D9 and D19 in the present case cannot be considered to be in a neighbouring field to that of shoe press belts for papermaking, but that they do form part of a broader, general field, relating to the general use of polyurethanes in dynamic mechanical applications solving similar problems to the current case. Therefore the skilled person would consider the disclosure of both documents.”
• The Board considers the claims to be inventive even in view of D9 and D19.

EPO T 1154/16 -  link

3.2 Objective technical problem

3.2.1 A shoe press belt for papermaking is known from document D8 which by common consent represents the closest prior art.

3.2.2 Both parties agree that the subject-matter of claim 1 differs from the known belt of D8 in that the urethane prepolymer (A) is obtained by reacting an isocyanate compound (a) comprising 55 to 100 molar % of a p-phenylene-diisocyanate (PPDI) compound.

3.2.3 The objective technical problem was regarded by the opposition division in the contested decision (see page 12) as being to provide an improved shoe press belt which has good mechanical properties in crack resistance, flexural fatigue resistance and wear resistance.

T 0984/15 - The skilled person for inventive step

 Key points

• In this opposition appeal, the Board deals with the 'obviousness stage' of the problem solution approach to inventive step.
• The opponent argued that the skilled person was “an expert in the field of telecommunications engineering, who typically is a graduate engineer in electrical engineering, physics or informatics with a focus on telecommunications and has several years of practical experience in the field of communication networks, e.g., in a development department of a company specialized in this field. Thus, the skilled person has a fundamental theoretical understanding and a broad knowledge regarding the implementation of such theoretical knowledge. ”
• The patentee argued that “the relevant skilled person would be an engineer in telecommunications who is familiar with existing wireless communications systems and who might have some knowledge of new technologies, but no detailed knowledge of the upcoming LTE standard”
• The Board “the board recalls that the technical field and general knowledge associated with the notional skilled person within the meaning of Article 56 EPC should be defined on the basis of the objective technical problem to be solved by that skilled person in the framework of the problem-solution approach. This is because the skilled person under Article 56 EPC is the person qualified to solve the established objective technical problem”
• The Board: “In view of this objective technical problem, the notional skilled person, for the purpose of assessing inventive step under Article 56 EPC, is a telecommunications engineer working in the field of 3GPP-based mobile networks. The board does not agree with the quite limited set of skills attributed to the skilled person by the [patentee and rather concurs with the [opponent]  that the skilled person could even be a member of the 3GPP RAN Working Group 2.”
• 
  
  

EPO T 0984/15 -  link

2.2 The person skilled in the art


2.2.1 In the case at hand, it is particularly important to establish which attributes can be ascribed to the notional person skilled in the art within the meaning of Article 56 EPC.

2.2.2 As to the relevant person skilled in the art, the appellant [opponent] indicated in their statement of grounds of appeal the following (see section IV.19; board's emphasis):

"The patent opposed thus is directed to a person of average skill in the art, i.e. an expert in the field of telecommunications engineering, who typically is a graduate engineer in electrical engineering, physics or informatics with a focus on telecommunications and has several years of practical experience in the field of communication networks, e.g., in a development department of a company specialized in this field. Thus, the skilled person has a fundamental theoretical understanding and a broad knowledge regarding the implementation of such theoretical knowledge. An implementation may comprise, e.g., development and/or testing of hardware and/or software. The skilled person is also able to work with and understand the telecommunication standards, in particular the technical specifications of the 3rd Generation Partnership Project. He is aware of the interrelation of various documents belonging to the same technical sphere of a standard. He can be a member of the 3GPP RAN (Radio Access Network) Working Group 2 dealing with the Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-UTRA), in particular handover mechanisms between various radio access technologies."

T 2690/16 - The arbitrary imposition of a limitation

Key points

• This is a case about inventive step of polymers.
• “Under these circumstances where the claim defines a desideratum in terms of a combination of properties and it is shown that the achievement of the required outcome as expressed by the SCL is to an extent arbitrary and not associated with the other features of the claim, or any particular method of manufacture, the objective technical problem can be formulated only as the provision of further polymers.”
• “The arbitrary imposition of a limitation in order to provide a definition of subject-matter thus deemed as belonging to the claim is trivial and an obvious solution to the problem of providing merely further polymers.”
  

EPO T 2690/16 -  link

2.5 The objective technical problem

Under these circumstances where the claim defines a desideratum in terms of a combination of properties and it is shown that the achievement of the required outcome as expressed by the SCL is to an extent arbitrary and not associated with the other features of the claim, or any particular method of manufacture, the objective technical problem can be formulated only as the provision of further polymers.

2.6 Obviousness

Polymers of the general type as defined are known from D2, and D6 provides details of how different catalyst influence the structure of the polymer in terms of regio- and stereoerrors. In addition the examples in the patent show that polymers according to claim 1 can be obtained by operating within the teaching of D2 (point 2.4, above).

The arbitrary imposition of a limitation in order to provide a definition of subject-matter thus deemed as belonging to the claim is trivial and an obvious solution to the problem of providing merely further polymers.

Thus for the skilled person seeking to provide further polymers based on those known from D2 it would be obvious in the light of the teaching of this document alone, or possibly with further reference to D6 to identify manners in which further polymers according to claim 1 could be produced. Similarly D14 provides teachings relating to the effect of the same category of catalysts on the microstructure and crystallisation behaviour of the polymers. Once this was done, the step of carrying out a series of trials and on the basis of the results thereof arbitrarily defining some of the resulting polymers as belonging to "the invention" whilst excluding others on the basis of certain properties, was trivial, in particular in the light of the evidence that polymers with the required properties were accessible by all of the polymerisation methods investigated.

T 0411/17 - Dependent claims

Key points

• The OD held a request inadmissible. The Board admits it under Art. 12(4) RPBA 2007.
• “It is apparent from the file that the opposition division exercised its discretion not to admit the request into the proceedings on the grounds that, in view of feature g), claim 1 of the second auxiliary request did not find a correspondence in a dependent claim of the patent as granted. ”
• The Board admits the request.
• “It is also apparent to the board that the subject-matter of claim 1 of the second auxiliary request corresponds to a combination of claims 1, 8 and 9 of the then first auxiliary request. The board therefore considers that there was sufficient time for the opponent to prepare for the subject-matter of the second auxiliary request, the more so since the opponent could have foreseen that auxiliary requests were to follow given the preliminary opinion of the opposition division as set out in the annex to its summons to oral proceedings. The board notes also that, apart from feature g), claim 1 of the second auxiliary request corresponds to a combination of claims 1, 8 and 9 as granted. At no point in time did the opponent raise objections against the subject-matter of such a combination, although this could have been done as early as with the notice of opposition.”

EPO T 0411/17 -   link

4.2 Admission into the appeal proceedings (Article 12(4) RPBA 2007)

4.2.1 The second auxiliary request is identical to the second auxiliary request underlying the decision under appeal. The opposition division did not admit that request into the opposition proceedings on the grounds that it was late-filed (filed during the first-instance oral proceedings) and that claim 1 of the request was not based on the claims as granted.

4.2.2 Article 12(4) RPBA 2007 conveys the board the discretionary power to hold inadmissible facts, evidence or requests which were not admitted in the first-instance proceedings.

4.2.3 The respondent requested to confirm the opposition division's assessment and not to admit the second auxiliary request into the appeal proceedings. The respondent emphasised that the patent proprietor could have foreseen from the annex to the summons of the opposition division that the opposition division would raise an objection under Article 54(3) EPC against the main request in view of D3 and an objection under Article 54(2) EPC against the auxiliary request in view of D9 as set out in the decision under appeal. In the respondent's view, the patent proprietor deliberately chose not to file the second auxiliary request before expiry of the time limit pursuant to Rule 116(2) EPC.

T 1963/17 - Filed with the wrong description

Key points

• "The case history is the following. The application based on two US priority filings was published on 26 July 2012 with a description which did not match with the claims and vice versa, despite being both in the same technical field of catalysts. After entry into the European phase, the examiner considered that the claims could not be searched and the amended description not be taken into account. With letter dated 22 September 2014 the applicant reverted to the claims as originally filed and it filed a description that consisted of a verbatim repetition of the features defined in the original claims with a further reference to figure 1 as originally filed. "
• The question is whether this is possible, i.e. completely deleting the original description and replacing it by a "verbatim repetition of the features defined in the original claims".
• The Board: “the provisions of the EPC do not allow the replacement in toto of an original description with a different one”.
• The Board reasons that this follows from R.56 EPC being limited to missing parts of the description and hence not being applicable to entire descriptions.
• “Since Rule 56 is a provision that relates to Part IV of the EPC (Procedure up to grant, Arts. 90 - 98) it appears of no relevance to the interpretation of this specific Rule whether the replacement of the description adds subject matter to the application, or not (Article 123(2) EPC).”

EPO T 1963/17 -  link

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The appeal lies from the decision of the examining division refusing European patent application n° 12 736 476.8 because the claims of the then pending requests lacked support by the description and clarity (Article 84 EPC). Furthermore the amended description did not comply with the requirements of Rule 42(1)(e) EPC, as the applicant replaced the original description, that did not contain support for the present claims, with a new one which merely listed the embodiments and preferred embodiments of the invention as defined in claims 1 to 15 then on file.

II. The case history is the following. The application based on two US priority filings was published on 26 July 2012 with a description which did not match with the claims and vice versa, despite being both in the same technical field of catalysts. After entry into the European phase, the examiner considered that the claims could not be searched and the amended description not be taken into account. With letter dated 22 September 2014 the applicant reverted to the claims as originally filed and it filed a description that consisted of a verbatim repetition of the features defined in the original claims with a further reference to figure 1 as originally filed. After a further exchange of letters, the examining division refused the application because in its view a description that consisted of a mere repetition of the claims was insufficient to meet the requirements of Article 84 and Rule 42 EPC.

[...]

Reasons for the Decision

1. Compliance with the requirements of Articles 78, 123(2), Rules 42, 56 and 139 EPC - Exchange of an erroneously filed description