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.