R 11/23 - A new clarity issue raised in the written decision

Key points

• This is the twelfth successful petition for review, by my count. The decision was already published in July 2025. The blog post was kept in stock for some time by oversight. 
• The successful petitions are now: R11/23, R 12/21,   R3/22,  R 5/19 , R 4/17 , R 3/15, R 2/14 , R 15/11, R 3/10, R 7/09 , R 21/11 , R 16/13 (sorry  no links).
• The patent application was filed in 2004 (as a PCT application). The grant was in 2017 (!). EP Entry in 2005, first action from the Examining Division in 2010, second Communication in 206 - we are looking back at the dark ages of the EPO. The decision of the TBA was T0532/20. 
• "Specifically, the petitioner [proprietor] argues that there were two distinct clarity objections against claim 1 of auxiliary request 8: The alleged lack of clarity what "maintaining currents in an allowable range" meant (the "allowable current range objection") and the alleged lack of information on which components were to be protected by the protective circuit (the "unspecified components objection"). The petitioner acknowledges that it was heard in the context of the "allowable current range objection" but it asserts that it was confronted with the "unspecified components objection" [and the Board's negative finding on that point] when reading the written decision only. Referring to pertinent case law of the boards of appeal, the petitioner argues that Article 113 EPC particularly meant that a party shall not be surprised by previously undisclosed reasons and evidence when studying the decision (pages 2 and 3 of the petition). "
• "The Enlarged Board also does not see any clear indication that the "unspecified components objection" was raised implicitly, for example as an aspect of an overarching clarity objection. During the written appeal proceedings, an objection was made that the critical feature (as quoted above in point VI.) defined a result to be achieved ("a protective circuit for maintaining currents within an allowable range") but not the technical measure of how to achieve it"
• "The "allowable current range objection" and the "unspecified components objection" are the aspects of the overall clarity or "result to be achieved" objection against the critical issue which were discussed in the decision under review. The objections were addressed separately (Reasons points 7.4 and 7.5), with a different outcome. The Board's finding that the "unspecified components objection" was justified in view of Article 84 EPC ultimately led to the revocation of the patent even though the "allowable current range objection" was not justified in the Board's view."
• On the burden of proof of the petitioner to show that an issue was not discussed during the oral proceedings before the BoA: "Since the Enlarged Board has no power or ability to investigate further whether other facts or indications might suggest that the petitioner could be aware that the Board had doubts about the specific aspect of clarity (namely, the "unspecified component" issue), it has to rely on the parties' submissions in this respect. In the absence of any such indication it is not for the party alleging a breach of its right to be heard to prove that there were no such facts or indications (see R 15/11, Reasons point 5). Any doubts remaining on whether a decision under review is based upon facts and considerations on which the parties had an opportunity to comment must be solved to the affected party's benefit (see R 2/14, Reasons point 10.3.4)."
• "The "unspecified components objection" which had not been discussed during the appeal proceedings eventually was the reason for the Board's finding that the patent was invalid. The Enlarged Board concludes that a fundamental violation of Article 113(1) EPC occurred."

EPO 

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

https://www.epo.org/en/boards-of-appeal/decisions/r230011eu1