T 1975/23 - Splitting the independent claim in opposition

Key points

• The Board, in translation: "It was argued [by the opponent] that [auxiliary request 3 ] did not meet the requirements of Rule 80 EPC because in the set of claims of auxiliary request 3, the independent process [] claim of the patent was replaced by two independent process [] claims.
• The board finds no violation of Rule 80 EPC. The situation is comparable to that decided in case T 2290/12. In that case, the opposition division concluded that the subject-matter of the patent's sole independent claim lacked an inventive step. The patent proprietor then attempted to cover parts of the granted claim it considered inventive by means of several independent claims.
• The present case is similar. The board agrees with the observations in point 4.1 of the reasons for decision T 2290/12. The reasons that led to the non-admission of requests in decisions T 610/95 and T 223/97 cannot be directly applied to the present case. The objection under Rule 80 EPC is therefore unconvincing."
• The board explained in point 4.1 [of T 2290/12] that this approach was, in principle, justifiable as long as there was no abuse of process and no unreasonably large number of independent claims was filed. 
• Since inventive step constitute[s] a ground for opposition, there was no violation of Rule 80 EPC.

EPO 

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

https://www.epo.org/de/boards-of-appeal/decisions/t231975du1