T 2360/13 - Coriolis flow meter software

Key points

• In this somewhat older decision (issued 26.11.2018) the Board finds claim 1 to be inventive. Claim 1 is directed to " a method for providing ordering and configuring of flowmeters, comprising: in a server, receiving ...".
•  " the claimed method comprises two distinct phases, namely a first phase involving the selection and ordering of the flowmeter, and a second phase involving the configuration of the flowmeter after the user has received the selected flowmeter." 
• "the first phase of the claimed method does not go beyond the obvious application of the disclosure of document A1 to a remote ordering client-server system and the subsequent transmission of an order for the selected flowmeter."
• " In the board's view, however, the claimed configuration step goes [of the second phase], in the technical context of the claimed method, beyond a mere communicating with other devices, and in particular with a server, in a network, and requires, as submitted by the appellant, the installation of a configuration application in the flowmeter and therefore the adjustment of the operational characteristics of the flowmeter." 
• " claim 1 has been amended during the appeal proceedings to require that the flowmeter is remotely configured over the network by connecting the remote computer connected to the server to the flowmeter. Neither document D5, nor the remaining documents on file, disclose or suggest remotely configuring a flowmeter, not within the communications network in which the flowmeter might, in operation, be integrated, but by specifically connecting the flowmeter connected to the remote computer to the same server and over the same network previously used for carrying out the operations of selecting and subsequently ordering the flowmeter."

1. A method for providing ordering and configuring of flowmeters, comprising:
in a server (205),
receiving (415) input flow stream parameters over a network (220) from a computer (210) that is remotely located from said server;
determining (420) flowmeter parameters from said input flow stream parameters;
determining (425) whether at least one flowmeter is suitable for said flowmeter parameters;
transmitting (435) information on said at least one flowmeter to said computer over said network for display to a user;
receiving (440) a selection of one of said at least one flowmeter displayed to said user from said computer over said network;
transmitting (475) an order for said selected flowmeter; and
after said user receives said selected flowmeter, remotely configuring said selected flowmeter (477) over said network (220), by connecting the remote computer (210) connected to said server (250) to said selected flowmeter.

EPO T 2360/13 -  link

3.2 Claim 1 is directed to a method allowing a user to select and order a flowmeter and, upon reception of the flowmeter, to configure the flowmeter, using a computer connected to a server over a network and remotely located from the server. Therefore, as held by the examining division in the contested decision in respect of the independent method claim of the requests then on file, the claimed method comprises two distinct phases, namely a first phase involving the selection and ordering of the flowmeter, and a second phase involving the configuration of the flowmeter after the user has received the selected flowmeter.

3.2.1 As regards the first phase, in its decision the examining division essentially held in respect of the independent method claim of the requests then on file that

- the features relating to the selection and ordering of the flowmeter (see the claimed steps of receiving input flow stream parameters, determining the corresponding flowmeter parameters, determining flowmeters suitable for the flowmeter parameters, transmitting to a user information on the suitable flowmeters, receiving a selection by the user of one of the suitable flowmeters, and transmitting an order for the selected flowmeter) pertained to an administrative method, and the ordering phase carried out general purpose administrative data processing;
- having regard to the structural elements of the claimed method (i.e. the server, the network, and the remote computer), the closest state of the art was a notoriously known general purpose computer system such as a client-server system;
- remote order placing mechanisms for different products, such as cars, mobile phones, etc., on the basis of parameters set by a user were already known in the state of the art (see document D1, abstract, together with column 1, line 3 to column 8, line 27; and document D3, abstract), and
- it was obvious for the skilled person to implement the administrative method of remotely allowing the selection and then the ordering of a flowmeter into an appropriate general purpose computer system as claimed (Article 56 EPC 1973).

T 1046/14 - Dragging icons on touch screen

Key point

• In this somewhat older decision (26.11.2018), the Board finds claim 1 to be inventive. The claim is directed to "a method of displaying an icon attributed to an executable function in a terminal having a touchscreen".
• " D1 discloses control means for manipulating an object displayed on a touch screen." 
• "  the appellant has convincingly argued that the objects in D1 are not icons in the sense of claims 1 and 8. " 
• " an icon in D1 [is] a symbolic representation of a computer function which is used for manipulating an object. Furthermore, the entire teaching and the different manipulations described in document D1 solely relate to an object, never to the icon. An object is described as having an "object type", specifying the shape and physical properties of the object (see column 8, lines 21 to 25: "weight", "hardness", "frictional resistance", "center of gravity")." 
• " the objective technical problem may indeed be formulated, as argued by the appellant, as how to improve the system so that an icon of D1 associated with an executable function, not an object, can be moved on the touchscreen while at the same time preventing unintentional displacement of the icon.
• The skilled person will not find in D1 any hint at the possible manipulation of an icon. They would not consider applying the mechanisms for moving objects on the touchscreen to moving the icons, since there are fundamental differences between an icon and an object, such as the above-mentioned types and physical properties (e.g. gravity, friction). " 

• 
  

EPO T 1046/14 -  link

VI. Claim 1 according to the main request reads as follows:

"A method of displaying an icon attributed to an executable function in a terminal having a touchscreen (140), the method including:
- displaying the icon (141) and fixing the icon to a first position on the touchscreen such that the icon can not be moved away from the first position by a touch-and-drag action;
characterized by:
- if the icon is touched for a predetermined time, releasing (S27) the position fixation of the icon such that the whole icon can be moved away from the first position to a second position by a touch-and-drag action; and
- displaying a first indication to visually inform a user that the position fixation of the icon is released, wherein the displayed first indication includes at least one of a graphical indication, an animation, and a text message,
wherein the fixed icon is available to a user before the fixed icon is released."

3. Main request - inventive step

3.1 Prior art D1

D1 discloses control means for manipulating an object displayed on a touch screen.
[...]
 D1 thus discloses a manipulation of an object which is similar, in terms of the movement and display of images on the screen, to the touch-and-drag and fixing actions described in the application.

T 0888/17 - Second appeal, two oral proceedings

Key points

• In case T 2614/11 notified 03.03.2015, the Board had remitted the case to the OD to decide on the adaption of the description to the claims found allowable by the Board. By decision of 02.02.2017, the OD took a decision. The opponent appealed. The BoA held oral proceedings on 28.06.2018 (09:00 - 09:45); the patentee did not attend these. The patent raised new objections against the amended description pages filed on 17.05.2018. The BoA decided to continue the proceedings in writing. The BoA issued on 17.07.2018 summons for second oral proceedings as well as a  Communication, the patentee filed an amended page 2 on 14.08.2018. The opponent requested a correction of the minutes of the oral proceedings by letter of 03.09.2018. The second oral proceedings took place on 05.11.2018 (from 13:00 to 14:15), the patentee did not attend these. 

EPO T 0888/17 -  link

III. By the decision T 2614/11, the case was remitted to the department of first instance with the order to maintain the patent on the basis of the third auxiliary request as submitted with the letter of 9 October 2014 and a description to be adapted thereto.
[...]
IV. The appeal by the opponent lies from the decision of the opposition division that the adapted description met the requirements of Article 84 EPC and that the amended patent on the basis of auxiliary request 3 met the requirements of the EPC.

VI. The opponent (hereinafter the appellant) filed an appeal against said decision. [...]

T 0104/15 - The Board can properly judge technical content

Key points

• In this examination appeal, the Board cites a new document D8. The applicant requests immediate remittal so that D8 can be discussed in two instances. The Board does not grant the remittal.
• D8 originates from the applicant is cited by the Board in reply to fresh arguments of the applicant. Furthermore, in examination appeal, the Boards are restricted neither to an examination of the grounds for the contested decision nor to the facts and evidence on which the decision was based (G10/93). 
• " Thirdly, the board, comprising technically qualified members, is in a position to properly judge the technical content of the present claims and the newly introduced prior-art document, and to deal with the merits of the present case without remittal" 

EPO T 0104/15 -  link

2. PRINCIPAL REQUEST

2.1 The appellant requested that the case be remitted to the examining division for further prosecution in the light of newly introduced document D8. The appellant argued that citing a document for the first time at this late stage of the proceedings effectively meant that prosecution of the application had to be condensed down to one round of written communication during which the opportunities for amendment and for filing new requests were limited. Thus, immediate remittal was consistent with the principles of G 9/91 (OJ EPO 1993, 408).

T 0839/14 - Remittal in 10th year opposition procedure

Key points

• Notice of opposition was filed in 2008, so the procedure is taking 10 years by now. The Board remits the case back to the OD.
• The Board finds the Main Request to be sufficiently disclosed and to be novel over E13 (I understand unlike the OD, which had allowed the 1st AR).
• " The opposition division has neither considered novelty with respect to the other documents brought forward against it, nor did it examine and decide on the ground of inventive step in the light of further citations. At appeal stage neither the Appellant-Opponent nor the Appellant-Proprietor have submitted any argument in relation to these issues. Therefore, as was confirmed at the oral proceedings before the Board, neither the parties nor the Board were in a position to conduct a meaningful discussion of these remaining issues. Indeed at the oral proceedings both parties for this very reason requested remittal."

EPO T 0839/14 - link

5.5 Since E13 does not directly and unambiguously disclose a high resolution linear actuator moving the piston, the Board can but conclude that the subject-matter of claim 1 [of the Main Request, PJL] is novel with respect to this prior art according to Art. 54(2) EPC.

6. Remittal

6.1 The Board has considered the exercise of the first instance discretionary power not to admit the fresh ground under Art 100c), and has further considered opposition grounds based on Art l00(b) and Art 100a) in relation with Art 54(1) EPC in respect of E13 and has reached the conclusion its subject-matter contained novel features with respect to this disclosure.

T 1238/14 - Right to be heard - auxiliary requests immediately rejected

Key points

• The Board sets aside the refusal decision because of a substantial procedural violation: the refusal decision was taken directly after the applicant had filed auxiliary requests in response to the summons for oral proceedings. This violates the right to be heard because the applicant learned about the ED's objections against those request only in the refusal decision.

EPO T 1238/14 - link

Entscheidungsgründe

1. Die Beschwerde ist zulässig.

2. Rechtliches Gehör (Artikel 113(1) EPÜ)

2.1 Die Beschwerdeführerin stützt ihren Hauptantrag darauf, dass die Prüfungsabteilung durch den Erlass der angefochtenen Entscheidung das rechtliche Gehör der Beschwerdeführerin in Bezug auf die neu eingereichten Hilfsanträge 1 und 2 verletzt habe. Dies stelle einen Verfahrensfehler dar, der eine Zurückverweisung an die erste Instanz rechtfertige.

2.2 Gemäß Artikel 113(1) EPÜ dürfen Entscheidungen des Europäischen Patentamtes nur auf Gründe gestützt werden, zu denen sich die Beteiligten äußern konnten.

2.3 Im vorliegenden Fall hatte die Beschwerdeführerin in Antwort auf die damalige Ladung zur mündlichen Verhandlung vor der Prüfungsabteilung die Hilfsanträge 1 und 2 eingereicht.

T 1542/14 - Rule 137(5) not in opposition

Key points

• In this opposition appeal, the Board confirms that Rule 137(5) does not apply to amendments in opposition (following T443/97).

EPO T 1542/14 - link

5. Regel 137(5) EPÜ

Der Einwand der Beschwerdeführerin, dass die Änderungen des Anspruchs 1 während des Einspruchsverfahrens die Vorschriften der Regel 137(5) EPÜ verletzten, trifft nicht zu, da, wie von der Beschwerdegegnerin argumentiert, Regel 137(5) EPÜ nur auf Änderungen, die während des Prüfungsverfahrens vorgenommen wurden, abstellt, siehe Rechtssprechung der Beschwerdekammern, 8. Auflage 2016, IV.B.5.1-5.2.

T 1890/15 - Experts oral proceedings Boards

Key points

• The Board notes in an obiter paragraph that " Should oral submissions by an accompanying person be considered and intended to be oral evidence comparable to a written statement ("affidavit") of said person, the same criteria as for the admission of late filed facts and evidence should apply. Indeed, submissions by an accompanying person involving the presentation of oral evidence will by definition relate to factual circumstances which will require that the opposing party be given an adequate and proper opportunity to present facts, evidence and arguments in reply (Article 13(2) RPBA). In the absence of exceptional circumstances and of an agreement by the opposing party, a request for hearing an accompanying person on specific facts which is filed either shortly before the date appointed for oral proceedings, or at the oral proceedings, will therefore be refused. " 
• As a comment, this may possibly mean that the Board notes that where an affidavit filed during the oral proceedings to evidence a certain fact would not be admissible, an oral submission by an accompanying person evidencing such a fact should not be a way to circumvent this; also to safeguard the right of the other party to provide counter-evidence to any facts asserted during such oral submissions. Note that oral submissions by accompanying persons are, as a matter of law, entirely different from a formal witness hearing under Art. 117 EPC. 
• The decision was taken already on 19.12.2017, the written decision was issued on 30.11.2018 so the Board needed some time for drafting the decision (perhaps for one of the other paragraphs of the decision, or for the one discussed above).

EPO T 1890/15 -  link



2.6 Although not relevant for its decision, the Board notes that in decision G 4/95, the Enlarged Board did not accept that Article 117 EPC provides a legal basis for hearing oral submissions by an accompanying person involving the presentation of facts and evidence (G 4/95, OJ 1996, 412, point 8 of the Reasons). In view of the reference to Article 117 EPC in general, it is not entirely clear whether the Enlarged Board considered that an accompanying person, in particular a technical expert, gives oral evidence by way of making oral submissions at the oral proceedings, or merely presents (legal or technical) arguments in place of the presentation of the case (pleading) by the professional representative. Should oral submissions by an accompanying person be considered and intended to be oral evidence comparable to a written statement ("affidavit") of said person, the same criteria as for the admission of late filed facts and evidence should apply. Indeed, submissions by an accompanying person involving the presentation of oral evidence will by definition relate to factual circumstances which will require that the opposing party be given an adequate and proper opportunity to present facts, evidence and arguments in reply (Article 13(2) RPBA). In the absence of exceptional circumstances and of an agreement by the opposing party, a request for hearing an accompanying person on specific facts which is filed either shortly before the date appointed for oral proceedings, or at the oral proceedings, will therefore be refused. This is in line with the conclusions in point 10 of the Reasons of G 4/95.

T 2707/16 - Slow examination is substantial procedural violation

Key points

• In this appeal against a refusal, the Board sets aside the refusal and remits the case. The applicant had requested a refund of the appeal fee because of the excessive length of the first instance procedure. The application was filed in 2001 and was refused only in 2016.
• After a detailed analysis, including case law of the European Court of Human Rights, the Board considers the excessive delay to be a substantial procedural violation. "The severe delays in the present case had the consequence that the first- instance decision was taken much later than it would have been without the procedural deficiencies. Thus, they had an impact on an essential element of the decision, namely its date ("justice delayed is justice denied"). This is sufficient to render the procedural violation a substantial one." 
• However, the appeal fee is refuned because this would not be equitable.
"The Board is nevertheless of the opinion that a reimbursement of the appeal fee in view of unreasonable delays in first-instance proceedings should be regarded as equitable only where the applicant has made clear by some action that he did not tacitly agree with the stagnation of the proceedings. In the present case the appellant failed to provide any such signal for a very long period of time. Until August 2015, it neither enquired about the fate of the application nor submitted a request for acceleration."

EPO T 2707/16 -  link

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The applicant (appellant) appealed against the decision of the Examining Division refusing European patent application No. 01128655.6, filed on 30 November 2001 and published as EP 1 211 613 A2. The application claims a priority date of 30 November 2000.

[...]

IX. Oral proceedings took place as scheduled on 13 June 2016 in the absence of the appellant. In the oral proceedings, the Examining Division decided to refuse the application for lack of inventive step in the subject-matter of the independent claims of the main request, and of auxiliary requests 1 to 5, over notorious knowledge. The Examining Division considered most of the claimed features to be non-technical.

[...]

Reasons for the Decision

1. The appeal complies with the provisions referred to in Rule 101 EPC and is therefore admissible.

The invention

2. The application relates to the storage and management of hierarchical data relationships. As an example, a resource could be the root node of a hierarchy, and all individuals having access to this resource could be the leaves of a hierarchical relationship tree (paragraph [0004] of the application as published).

[...]

Remittal

14. Considering the need for an additional search, the Board makes use of its powers under Article 111(1) EPC and remits the case to the department of first instance for further prosecution. In view of the substantial delays already experienced (see points 30 to 33 below), the Board has dealt with this appeal case out of order and expects the further proceedings to be accelerated by the Examining Division.

Reimbursement of the appeal fee

15. Where the board of appeal deems an appeal to be allowable, the appeal fee has to be reimbursed if such reimbursement is equitable by reason of a substantial procedural violation (Rule 103(1)(a) EPC). In order to justify its request to that effect, the appellant has put forward two lines of argument. The first focuses on the long delays which occurred in the first-instance proceedings, the second on the allegation that the Examining Division infringed the right to be heard by directly appointing oral proceedings after having fundamentally changed its opinion.

The delays in the first-instance proceedings

16. In a number of cases the boards of appeal have dealt with the question whether delays in first-instance proceedings might amount to a procedural violation. Some of these decisions concerned the particular situation where a long period of time elapsed between the oral proceedings before the examining or opposition division and the notification of the written decision (see T 243/87 of 30 August 1989, reasons 2; T 900/02 of 28 April 2004, reasons 3; T 358/10 of 12 July 2012, reasons 5.1). Such delays (which ranged from thirteen months and sixteen days in T 243/87 to three years and seven months in T 900/02) were found to constitute substantial procedural violations. The main reason for this conclusion appears to have been that the long delays increased the risk of errors in the decision (see T 900/02, reasons 3; T 358/10, reasons 5.1) or might lead to situations where the requirement that a decision has to be reasoned (Rule 111(2) EPC) cannot properly be complied with (see in this regard T 390/86, OJ EPO 1989, 30, reasons 8).

T 1058/15 - Not admitted irrespective of relevance

Key points

• The Board does not admit a late-filed request, as being late filed, irrespective of the (alleged) relevance of the document.
• " Da die Beschwerdegegnerin der Zulassung des neuen Dokuments D8 nicht zugestimmt hat und in Anbetracht der sorgfaltswidrigen und sehr späten Vorlage dieses Dokuments sowie dem damit verbundenen, sehr späten Wiederaufgreifen des Neuheitseinwands, der bis dahin nicht Gegenstand des Beschwerdeverfahrens war, hat die Kammer - ungeachtet der Relevanz des neuen Dokuments - beschlossen, ihr Ermessen nach Artikel 13(1) VOBK dahingehend auszuüben, das Dokument D8 nicht in das Verfahren zuzulassen." 
• The Board considers it relevant that D8 is used for a novelty attack. In the first instance proceedings, lack of novelty  was based only on D1, such that novelty is not a new ground for opposition. The Board however does not [edit 06.12.2019] extends G 9/91 from not only new grounds of opposition, to also new attacks on the same ground but sees an analogous principle for admissibility.
• " Bei dem im Beschwerdeverfahren geltend gemachten, auf D8 basierenden Neuheitseinwand handelt es sich zwar nicht um einen gänzlich neuen Einspruchsgrund, der im Beschwerdeverfahren nur mit Zustimmung des Patentinhabers eingeführt werden könnte (näher: G 9/91, []), weil die Neuheit vorliegend schon im Einspruchsverfahren auf Basis eines anderen Dokumentes (D1) beanstandet worden war. Gleichwohl ist die Sach- und Interessenlage ähnlich, weil der Patentinhaber in beiden Fällen nicht damit rechnen muss, dass erst im Verlauf des Beschwerdeverfahrens ein weiterer Einspruchsgrund zum Tragen kommt und das Verfahren verkomplizieren wird." 

EPO T 1058/15 - link

Entscheidungsgründe

1. Zulassung von verspätet eingereichten Beweismitteln (Artikel 13 VOBK)

1.1 Die Beschwerdekammern haben gemäß Artikel 114(2) EPÜ das Ermessen, verspätet eingereichte Beweismittel nicht zuzulassen. Dies gilt insbesondere für Beweismittel, die erst nach Einreichung der Beschwerdebegründung oder der Erwiderung (Artikel 13(1) VOBK) bzw. nach Anberaumung der mündlichen Verhandlung eingereicht werden (Artikel 13(3) VOBK).

1.2 Die Kriterien, die bei der Ausübung dieses Ermessens anzuwenden sind, variieren je nach dem Stand des Verfahrens, in dem die Beweise eingereicht werden.

T 0500/15 - Admissibility late filed request

Key points

• The OD had decided to not admit a request. The Board reviews this discretionary decision of the OD. The Board notes at the outset that there is no legal basis for not admitting a request merely becuase it is filed late. 
• "Grundsätzlich ist eine Änderung des Patents im Einspruchsverfahren nach Regel 80 EPÜ für sich genommen nicht unzulässig, solange der Fall anhängig ist"
• As a comment, I know that this view is often stated, but the EPO Notice explaining the then new rule 57a EPC (now Rule 80) "addresses the purely substantive aspects of the proprietor´s entitlement to amend his patent, and does not specify the point in time up to which amendment is allowed: here existing practice would remain unchanged." (emphasis added). OJ 1995, p.417. 
• The Board follows: " Im Umkehrschluss sind Änderungen daher grundsätzlich solange zulässig, als das Verfahren anhängig ist. [...] Dies widerspricht wiederum nicht der Tatsache, dass die Einspruchsabteilung bei der Entscheidung über die tatsächliche Zulassung von Änderungen Ermessen hat, im vorliegenden Fall bereits unmittelbar nach Artikel 101(1) und Regel 79(1) EPÜ, auch über die allgemeinen Befugnisse hinaus, die durch Artikel 114 (2) EPÜ eingeräumt werden. Die grundsätzliche Zulässigkeit von Änderungen bedeutet nicht, dass Änderungen grundsätzlich immer zugelassen werden müssen."
  As a comment, I find this reasoning difficult to follow - the OD has a further ground for not admitting requests, beyond Article 114(2) EPC?
• The Board: "Unstreitig ist auch, dass eine solche Ermessensentscheidung unter Anwendung der in der Praxis des EPA anerkannten Kriterien getroffen werden muss." The "must" is decisive here because the OD had merely stated that the amendment was complex without giving reasons. The Board finds this a reason for setting aside the decision, because the procedureal factors for admitting (or not a request) "niemals allein und losgelöst von dem zu prüfenden Streitstoff angewendet werden können, aber nur insoweit, als sie sich auf die zugrunde liegende materiellrechtliche Frage auswirken, im vorliegenden Fall auf die Prüfung der Patentierbarkeit der Ansprüche." 
• The Board then considers that it can decide on the admissibility of the request itself, or remit the case to the OD. 
" Unter diesen Umständen entscheidet die Kammer, die Sache zur weiteren Entscheidung an die erste Instanz zurückzuverweisen. Nach Ansicht der Kammer muss die Zulassung der Anträge erneut entschieden werden, da die Umstände offensichtlich anders sind als die, die in der angefochtenen Entscheidung berücksichtigt wurden. In der Situation nach der Zurückverweisung kann mit Sicherheit davon ausgegangen werden, dass sowohl die Einsprechende als auch die Einspruchsabteilung genügend Zeit gehabt haben, sich mit dem Gegenstand der streitigen Anträge vertraut zu machen."
• As a comment, I am not sure if it is fortunate that something which was filed late, can in effect become timely later in the procedure by virtue of an appeal. If sufficient time for preparation was the only reason for not admitting late-filed request, this would take away the basis for the rule of Art. 12(4) RPBA that requests not admitted in the first instance proceedings are not admitted in the appeal procedure even when refiled with the Statement of grounds. (edit 29.12.2019). 
• The  Board remits the case. 

EPO T 0500/15 -  link

Entscheidungsgründe

2. Begründetheit der Beschwerde

2.1 Nach ständiger Rechtsprechung sollte sich eine Beschwerdekammer über die Art und Weise, in der die erste Instanz bei einer Entscheidung in einer bestimmten Sache ihr Ermessen ausgeübt hat, nur dann hinwegsetzen, wenn sie zu dem Schluss gelangt, dass die erste Instanz ihr Ermessen nach Maßgabe der falschen Kriterien, unter Nichtbeachtung der richtigen Kriterien oder in willkürlicher Weise ausgeübt hat und damit ihr eingeräumtes Ermessen überschritten hat (siehe Rechtsprechung der Beschwerdekammern des EPA, 8. Auflage 2016,(RdBK) IV.C.1.2.2.a)). Dieser Grundsatz gilt auch für die Frage der (Nicht)Zulassung verspäteten Vorbringens durch die Einspruchsabteilung, und normalerweise ist es nicht Aufgabe der Beschwerdekammer, die Sachlage des Falls nochmals wie ein erstinstanzliches Organ zu prüfen, um zu entscheiden, ob sie das Ermessen in derselben Weise ausgeübt hätte. Somit hat die Kammer zu entscheiden, ob die Nichtzulassung des Hauptantrags seitens der Einspruchsabteilung nach den richtigen Kriterien erfolgte.

T 1389/18 - Interruption of proceedings

Key points

• The Board confirms that the Legal Division can also retroactively conclude that an interruption of proceedings took place under Rule 142 EPC (this was not contested by the parties). In this case, the LD had found an interruption of proceedings due to insolvency proceedings being opened against one of the parties. The difficulty of the case that the LD found this on 04.01.2018, with effect of 01.08.2017, wheres oral proceedings had taken place on 12.09.2017 wherein the OD had pronounced the (interlocutory) decision that the patent can be maintained in amended form. Notices of appeals were filed on 15.01.2018 and 16.01.2018. 
• The Board concludes that any oral proceeding and any decision pronounced during such oral proceedings become non-existent if they take place during an interruption of proceedings.
• Hence, in the present case, with a retroactively found interruption of proceedings, there is no valid decision of the OD. Hence, the appeal is moot ("gegenstandslos"), the appeal proceedings are terminated "without a decision on the matter".
• As a comment, Rule 101(1) stipulates that an appeal is rejected as inadmissible if it does not comply with Article 106 EPC stating that "appeal shall lie from decisions".
• The Board refunds the appeal fee. The Board distinguishes from J 12/16, wherein the Legal Board had also found the appeal to be moot ("gegenstandslos") but had not refunded the appeal fee, because in J12/16 the appeal (concerning a request for registration of a transfer of an application) became moot during the appeal procedure (by the publication of the mention of the grant). 
• A further matter is that on the Legal Division had found on 31.07.2018 a further interruption of proceedings with effect of 01.06.2018 (again due to the insolvency of the patentee). The present Board finds that the Board needs to comply with this interruption, thereby distinguishing from T854/12 (r. 1.2.6.b; as a comment I think that there the reverse torpedo of the appeal procedure is meant). In T854/12, the Board found that it needs to decide itself on a possible interruption of proceedings in view of the devolutive effect of appeal. The present Board concludes that the devolutive effect is restricted for the case of a moot appeal, precisely in order to avoid that parties can "torpedo" the first instance proceedings simply by filing a  document called "appeal" thereby taking away the competence of the first instance departments. 

EPO T 1389/18 -  link


Headnote
1. Die Rechtsabteilung ist grundsätlich befugt, eine Unterbrechung des Verfahrens nach Regel 142(1)b EPÜ auch rückwirkend festzustellen (Gründe 4.).

2. Aus dem Wortlaut der geltenden Vorschrift "Unterbrechung des Verfahrens" und aus dem Gesamtzusammenhang der Regel 142 EPÜ kommt die Kammer zu dem Ergebnis, dass auch eine, während der Unterbrechung stattgefundene mündliche Verhandlung und eine in der Verhandlung verkündete Entscheidung der Einspruchsabteilung rückwirkend als nicht existent betrachtet werden müssen (Gründe 7.).

3. Dies bedeutet, dass es keine rechtswirksame Entscheidung der Einspruchsabteilung gibt. Folglich sind auch die Beschwerden vor der Kammer gegenstandslos, so dass das Beschwerdeverfahren ohne Entscheidung in der Sache beendet werden muss (Gründe 10.).

Sachverhalt und Anträge

I. Die vorliegenden Beschwerden betreffen die am 6. November 2017 zur Post gegebene Zwischenentscheidung der Einspruchsabteilung des Europäischen Patentamts betreffend die Aufrechterhaltung des Europäischen Patents Nr. 2220689 in geänderter Form.

II. Die für die Beschwerden relevanten Ereignisse lassen sich wie folgt zusammenfassen.

III. Am 12. September 2017 fand eine mündliche Verhandlung in Anwesenheit der Patentinhaberin und der Einsprechenden 1 und 4 statt. Am Ende der Verhandlung wurde die Zwischenentscheidung der Einspruchsabteilung verkündet. Die schriftliche Entscheidung wurde am 6. November 2017 zur Post gegeben, so dass die Beschwerdefrist am 16. Januar 2018 endete.

IV. Die Rechtsabteilung teilte den Parteien in einer Mitteilung vom 7. November 2017 mit, dass gegen eine der Patentinhaberinnen ein Insolvenzverfahren eingeleitet wurde. Damit musste die Rechtsabteilung prüfen, ob die Voraussetzungen für die Unterbrechung des Verfahrens nach Regel 142 (1) b) EPÜ vorlagen. Die Parteien erhielten Gelegenheit zur Stellungnahme, nach Aktenlage gingen jedoch keine Stellungnahmen beim EPA ein.

T 0591/15 - Exceptionally admitting and remitting

Key points

• " In the present case, since the situation principally arose out of an erroneous decision by the opposition division not to admit E15 into the proceedings, exceptionally the board considers it equitable not to apply Article 13(3) RPBA, but to admit the new requests into the proceedings and accede to the appellant's request that the case be remitted to the opposition division for further prosecution "
• Note 20.10.2019: changed the title.

EPO T 0591/15 - link

2.6 Thus, the board is faced with two options: either not to admit the new requests under Article 13(3) RPBA since they raise new issues (in which case the respondent would be limited to defending the decision under appeal against being overturned), or to admit the requests and remit the case to the opposition division for further prosecution on the basis of the new requests.

In the present case, since the situation principally arose out of an erroneous decision by the opposition division not to admit E15 into the proceedings, exceptionally the board considers it equitable not to apply Article 13(3) RPBA, but to admit the new requests into the proceedings and accede to the appellant's request that the case be remitted to the opposition division for further prosecution (Article 111(1) EPC).

T 0820/15 - Rule 137(5) and dependent claims

Key points

• The Examining Division had refused the application under Rule 137(5) EPC. 
• The Board: " To determine the compliance with Rule [137(5) EPC], it has to be first ascertained whether or not the amended claims relate to unsearched subject-matter and only in the event that the subject-matter is considered to be unsearched must it be further checked whether this subject-matter combines with the originally claimed invention to form a single general inventive concept, i.e. whether the respective subject-matters may be considered to be unitary".
  As a comment, in my view the applicant can free choose for which one of the two cumulative requirements of Rule 137(5) he wants to show that it doesn't apply in the case at hand, hence in my view, there is no prescribed order. (see my article in epi Information 2018/2).  
• The Board: "In the present case, claim 1 of the main request differs from claim 1 as originally filed in that it now includes added features G) and H) and further specifies that the audio-visual information is broadcast to multiple receivers.  It is apparent to the board that the entire application relates to TV broadcast systems, i.e. inherently [...] in accordance with feature H) and that using dynamic amounts of training information within the meaning of feature G) had been appropriately reflected in dependent claims 3, 11, 19 and 27 as originally filed. It also appears from the file that those dependent claims were in fact searched according to the respective International Search Report dated 4 November 2009. The board, therefore, concludes that the above added features cannot objectively be considered to be unsearched within the meaning of [Rule 137(5) EPC]."
• As a comment, Rule 137(5) EPC refers to "subject-matter which does not combine with the originally claimed invention or group of inventions to form a single general inventive concept". As held in T708/00, hn.1, unity of invention with one of the original claims is sufficient; hence, in this case, the Board could also have noted that feature G has unity of invention with e.g. original calm 3 specifying the same feature. As explained in T708/00, hn. 1, the question is, if the claim at issue had been added to the original set of claims, had a further search fee been payable.
• Rule 137(5) is for features taken from the description; lack of unity between the original claims needs to be addressed under G2/92 which is a separate and distinct ground for not admitting claims (see my article and OJ 1995, p.420 which contains the EPO's explanation of the then-new rule). 
• This decision takes a different course than I did in my article; of course, very well the Board can be right or perhaps there is no substantive difference.
• I am always open to any insights about Rule 137(5) EPC, comments are welcome.

EPO T 0820/15 - link

3.1 Allowability of claim amendments (Rule 137(5) EPC)

3.1.1 The examining division found that present claim 1 did not comply with the requirements of Rule 137(5) EPC because its subject-matter as amended related to unsearched subject-matter and did not combine with the originally claimed invention to form a single general inventive concept (see Reasons 1 to 3). This was essentially because the originally filed independent claims did not comprise any feature pointing towards adapting the amount of training information within the meaning of feature G) of claim 1 (see appealed decision, Reasons 3.2.2).

3.1.2 As to the application of Rule 137(5) EPC, the board first points out that, in the present case, Rule 137(4) EPC - as in force from 13 December 2007 until 31 March 2010 - applies, since the respective International Search Report had been completed on 22 October 2009, i.e. before 1 April 2010 (cf. Decision of the Administrative Council of 25 March 2009, OJ EPO 2009, 299, Article 2).

T 1593/15 - CPA and effective and efficient conduct of oral proceedings

Key points

• In this opposition appeal, the Board gives important comments on the role of the CPA. There is also an intervention of an assumed infringer.
• " the [opponent] argued that a procedural violation had occurred since it had been prevented by the Opposition Division at the oral proceedings from presenting its line of argument on inventive step starting from D2 as the closest prior art." 
• " the Opposition Division applied the problem-solution approach stage by stage[]. Thus, in view of an effective and efficient conduct of oral proceedings, it systematically limited its decision-making process and accordingly the discussion with the parties to the determination of the closest prior art first, before discussing the other aspects of the inventive step of the claimed subject-matter. Such conduct of the oral proceedings was imposed in the present case by the numerous lack of inventive step objections raised by the opponents. " 
• The OD had heard the parties on which document was the CPA. After the OD decided that D4 was the CPA, it gave the opponents sufficient time to make their case from D4 as CPA.
• " In view of the above, the Board considers that the appellant's right to be heard was not violated and so no substantial procedural violation occurred. " 
• As to the effects of the intervention, made during the appeal of Opponent I: the ground of Art. 100(c), not admitted by the OD as being late filed, is admitted because it was raised again by the intervener. The ground of Art.100(b) raised for the first time by the intervener is also admitted. For the ground of Art. 54, this ground was raised before the OD only by opponent II (who did not appeal and is no longer a party), but that opposition was found inadmissible. The intervener did not raise the ground. The appellant raised the ground for the first time in appeal, but the ground is not admitted because the patentee does not consent (G1/95). The Board finds the main request to be allowable, the appeal of Opponent I is dismissed. 

EPO T 1593/15 - link

Reasons for the Decision

1. Intervention

Notice of intervention was filed by "DE IULIIS MACCHINE S.P.A.".

As appears from document E1 ("Tribunale Civile Di Napoli - Sezione Specializzata In Materia Di Impresa") filed with the notice of intervention, proceedings for infringement of the contested patent have been instituted in Italy against the intervener (Article 105(1)(a) EPC).

The notice of intervention was filed on Monday, 15 May 2017, i.e. within three months of the date on which said proceedings were instituted (14 February 2017, Rules 131(4) and 134(1) EPC), together with a written reasoned statement and payment of the opposition fee. Thus, the requirements set out in Rule 89 EPC are fulfilled.

As a consequence, the intervention is admissible and is treated as an opposition (Article 105(2) EPC; see also G 3/04, OJ EPO 2006, 118, in particular Reasons 10 and 11).

The above was the Board's preliminary opinion as set out in the annex to the summons to oral proceedings, point 1.3. It has not been contested by the respondent, either in writing or orally at the oral proceedings; it is maintained by the Board in deciding the case at hand.

T 0189/14 - Got Main Request, appeal inadmissible

Key points

• The Board confirms that an appeal of a patent proprietor is not admissible if it is against a decision of the OD finding his main request (with amended claims) allowable, even if the decision of the OD was hence to maintain the patent in amended form i.e. in restricted form.
•  "Im vorliegenden Fall hatte die Einspruchsabteilung jedoch dem Hauptantrag des Patentinhabers entsprochen und das Patent auf der Basis des damaligen Hauptantrages aufrechterhalten. Somit ist der Patentinhaber durch die Entscheidung der Einspruchsabteilung nicht beschwert."

EPO T 0189/14 - link

Entscheidungsgründe

1. Die Beschwerde der Beschwerdeführerin (Einsprechende) ist zulässig.

2. Zulässigkeit der Beschwerde des Patentinhabers

2.1 Während des Einspruchsverfahrens hatte sich der Patentinhaber auf den Gegenstand der erteilten Ansprüche 1 bis 6 zurückgezogen und diese eingeschränkte Version in der mündlichen Verhandlung vor der Einspruchsabteilung als seinen Hauptantrag weiterverfolgt (siehe Niederschrift der mündlichen Verhandlung vor der Einspruchsabteilung vom 7. November 2013, Annex II). In der angefochtenen Entscheidung hatte die Einspruchsabteilung das Streitpatent auf der Basis dieses damaligen Hauptantrages aufrechterhalten.

2.2 Gemäß Artikel 107 EPÜ kann jede Partei, die durch eine Entscheidung beschwert ist, Beschwerde einlegen.

2.3 Im vorliegenden Fall hatte die Einspruchsabteilung jedoch dem Hauptantrag des Patentinhabers entsprochen und das Patent auf der Basis des damaligen Hauptantrages aufrechterhalten. Somit ist der Patentinhaber durch die Entscheidung der Einspruchsabteilung nicht beschwert.

Das Argument des Patentinhabers, dass er durch die Entscheidung der Einspruchsabteilung auf Zurückweisung des ersten Hauptantrages beschwert sei (siehe Schriftsatz vom 3. September 2014, Seite 18) kann nicht überzeugen, da die Einspruchsabteilung in ihrer Entscheidung vom 20. Dezember 2013 (angefochtene Entscheidung) in korrekter Weise nur über den während der mündlichen Verhandlung eingereichten Hauptantrag entschieden hat.

Folglich ist die Beschwerde des Patentinhabers nicht zulässig ab initio im Sinne des Artikels 107 EPÜ.

2.4 Aus der Nichtzulässigkeit der Beschwerde des Patentinhabers folgt, dass im vorliegenden Fall nur eine einzige zulässige Beschwerde eingegangen ist, nämlich diejenige der vormaligen Einsprechenden, die durch die Entscheidung der Einspruchsabteilung als einzige der beiden Parteien im Sinne des Artikels 107 EPÜ beschwert war. Im Folgenden wird daher dem Patentinhaber die Stellung des Beschwerdegegners zugeteilt.

T 0964/17 - No remittal for features from dependent claims

Key points

• In this opposition appeal, the Board admits the new main request but does not remit the case as requested by the opponent.
• The Board notes that claim 1 at issue concerns a combination of claims as granted. Moreover, the claim is restricted compared by the earlier main request by features which were already the topic of the auxiliary requests filed with the Statement of grounds. The impugned decision had not dealt with these features, but the parties had commented on inventive step provided by these features during the appeal procedure.

EPO T 0964/17 -  link

2. Keine Zurückverweisung

2.1 Die Beschwerdegegnerin beantragt die Zurückverweisung der Sache an die Einspruchsabteilung zur weiteren Entscheidung im Falle der Zulassung des Hauptantrags.

2.2 Die Zurückverweisung zur weiteren Entscheidung steht im Ermessen der Kammer (Artikel 111(1) EPÜ). Dabei besteht nach ständiger Rechtsprechung kein absoluter Anspruch auf Entscheidung einer Frage in zwei Instanzen und ist insbesondere der Grundsatz der Verfahrensökonomie zu berücksichtigen (Rechtsprechung, supra, IV.E.7.6).

2.3 Im vorliegenden Fall stellt Anspruch 1 eine Kombination von erteilten Ansprüchen dar (vgl. 1.3.2 oben) und ist gegenüber dem zuvor anhängigen Hauptantrag eingeschränkt mit einem Teil der Merkmale, die bereits in den nunmehr anhängigen Hilfsanträgen, welche mit der Beschwerdebegründung eingereicht worden waren, vorhanden sind.

2.4 Die angefochtene Entscheidung enthält zwar keine Begründung hinsichtlich der erfinderischen Tätigkeit, die Parteien haben im Beschwerdeverfahren jedoch auch zur erfinderischen Tätigkeit Stellung genommen. Insbesondere enthält bereits die Beschwerdeerwiderung einen diesbezüglichen Vortrag zu den jetzt im Anspruch 1 vorhandenen Merkmalen (siehe Punkt 2.1.2; Merkmale M8 und M10).

2.5 Aus den genannten Gründen wird die Sache nicht zur weiteren Entscheidung an die Einspruchsabteilung zurückverwiesen.

[...]

8. Der Hauptantrag der Beschwerdegegnerin ist somit gewährbar.

T 2270/18 - Fast decision

Key points

• In this examination appeal, the decision was taken (and issued) in writing on 12.11.2018 (i.e. the full written decision) while the statement of grounds was filed on 18.07.2018, so the appeal was concluded in less than 5 months!
• The invention is about a packaging. The Board explains in detail why there is no problem of insufficient disclosure, and even goes into the underlying reasons for the ED's Art.83 objections.
•  " For sake of completeness the Board wishes to address the issue which apparently underlies the objection of the examining division, that is that by using a sheet packaging material as defined in claim 1 a sealed package of generally parallelepipedal form [...] cannot be obtained" 
• " It appears therefore possible to obtain a sealed package of the type shown in figures 6 and 7 of the application by making use of a sheet packaging material according to claim 1." 

EPO T 2270/18 - link

Reasons for the Decision

1. The decision is issued in written proceedings.

According to Article 12(3) RPBA, the Board may, subject to Article 113(1) and 116(1) EPC, decide the case at any time after the filing of the statement of grounds of appeal.

With regard to the findings and the order of the decision, the appellant's auxiliary request for oral proceedings in the event that the Board were minded not to allow the main request, is no longer relevant.

T 2076/15 - Request refund search fee in appeal

Key points

• In this examination appeal, the Boards finds the claims allowable. The Board then has to decide on the request for a refund of the paid additional search fee. The Board concludes that it is not competent to decide on the request, because it was made for the first time with the Statement of grounds in appeal. This follows from Rule 64(2) EPC, which refers to the Examining Division, according to the Board. 

EPO Headnote
Stellt der Beschwerdeführer im Prüfungsbeschwerdeverfahren erstmalig vor der Beschwerdekammer einen Antrag gemäß Regel 64 (2) EPÜ auf Rückzahlung einer gemäß Regel 64 (1) EPÜ zusätzlich entrichteten Recherchengebühr, so ist die Beschwerdekammer hierfür unzuständig und der Antrag daher unzulässig


EPO T 2076/15 - link

4.3 Der Gegenstand der unabhängigen Ansprüche 1 und 6 und der abhängigen Ansprüche 2 bis 5 und 7 beruht daher auf einer erfinderischen Tätigkeit (Artikel 56 EPÜ).

5. Nach Auffassung der Kammer genügen die Anmeldungsunterlagen gemäß dem vorliegenden Antrag der Beschwerdeführerin und die Erfindung, die sie zum Gegenstand haben, auch den übrigen Erfordernissen des EPÜ im Sinne von Artikel 97 (1) EPÜ. Somit kann die Erteilung eines Patents in dieser Fassung erfolgen (Artikel 111 (1) EPÜ).

6. Antrag auf Rückzahlung einer Recherchengebühr

6.1 Während der Recherche wurde durch die Beschwerdeführerin eine weitere Recherchengebühr entrichtet, nachdem die mit der Anmeldung eingereichten Ansprüche von der Recherchenabteilung als nicht einheitlich angesehen wurden (Regel 64 (1) EPÜ). Mit der Beschwerdebegründung hat die Beschwerdeführerin die Rückzahlung der zusätzlich bezahlten Recherchengebühr beantragt (Regel 64 (2) EPÜ).

T 1608/14 - All inventive step attacks

Key points

• In this opposition appeal, the Board concludes that claim 1 is novel, unlike the OD's decision. The Board then remits the case.
• " the Opposition Division did not examine and decide the ground of inventive step. Though in appeal the respondent challenged inventive step starting from D1, in opposition they had contested inventive step in view of various other combinations of prior art not considered in the decision under appeal (D4 with D6 or D7 with D6 or D1)." 
• " Remittal also appears equitable under the circumstances of the present case so that both parties can be in a position to argue on inventive step at the least in view of all attacks presented in opposition." (emphasis added).
• As a comment, the above remark of the Board indicates that (also) the opponent should be brought in "a position to argue on inventive step at the least in view of all attacks presented in opposition" 

EPO T 1608/14 - link

4. Remittal

4.1 The Board has considered the opposition grounds based on Article l00(c) together with Article 123(2) EPC, and Article 100(a) together with Articles 52(1) and 54(1) EPC for the main request, and has reached the conclusion that claim 1 of that request is thus allowable in this respect.

4.2 However, the Opposition Division did not examine and decide the ground of inventive step. Though in appeal the respondent challenged inventive step starting from D1, in opposition they had contested inventive step in view of various other combinations of prior art not considered in the decision under appeal (D4 with D6 or D7 with D6 or D1). Both parties request remittal if inventive step is to be fully examined in the light of these combinations. Indeed the Board has not had opportunity to consider these other combinations.

Remittal also appears equitable under the circumstances of the present case so that both parties can be in a position to argue on inventive step at the least in view of all attacks presented in opposition.

4.3 In view of the above, the Board decided to exercise its discretionary power under Article 111(1) EPC to remit the case to the department of first instance, especially as both parties also agree on remittal for a full examination of the question of inventive step, where this examination should also based on other documents.

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The decision under appeal is set aside.

2. The case is remitted to the department of first instance for further prosecution.