T 1375/22 - A range that is not narrow

Key points

• The Board, under inventive step, has to decide on the distinghuishing features.
• " The opposition division stated in reasons 7.4.2 that "the selection of a weight of 0.3 to 0.7 g within the range of 0.1 to 1.0 g could also be seen as novel" but saw no need to elaborate on this feature as "this had no bearing on novelty and inventive step"."
• " The Board shares the view of appellant (opponent 2), as pointed out in their statement of grounds of appeal, that the range of 0.3 to 0.7 g cannot be considered to be narrow compared to the known range of 0.1 to 1.0 g since it covers about half thereof and thus fails the novelty test as outlined in T 230/07."
• Compare T 1688/20 : " The question is whether the subrange defined in the claim provides for novelty. The prior art disclosure is 55 - 60, and the claimed range is  an angle of 56 degrees or more and 59 degrees or less"  (the Board in that case found the range novel).
• The distinguishing features are a smaller width and height (the case is about pouches of oral  tobacco).
• "This has the effect that the product becomes slimmer. Modifying the product known from D11 to become slimmer is, however, obvious to the skilled person. 
• "The skilled person knows that the size of an oral pouched smokeless tobacco product is limited since it is introduced between the user's gum and lip. It is obvious to the skilled person that a slimmer product may fit more discreetly and comfortably in the mouth of a user  "
• "By reducing the width of the product of D11, the skilled person hence arrives at the subject-matter of claim 1 according to auxiliary request 8 without any inventive step. "

EPO 

The link to the decision can be found after the jump.

https://www.epo.org/en/boards-of-appeal/decisions/t221375eu1