T 1167/21 - Rule 137(5) and unity a posteriori

Key points

• The Board, in translation: "This application is an international application pursuant to Article 153(2) EPC ("Euro-PCT application"). The European Patent Office, as the competent International Searching Authority (ISA), found that the subject-matter of claims 1 to 8 did not meet the unity requirement under Rule 13(1) PCT and identified four groups of inventions. Subsequently, after being invited to pay three additional search fees, which the appellants failed to comply with, only the first group of inventions, i.e., the subject-matter of claims 1 to 3, was searched to prepare the international search report."
• "The Examining Division took the view that the inclusion of feature (b) from the unsearched originally filed claim 5 in claim 1 according to the main request resulted in subject-matter which was not allowable under Rule 137(5), first sentence, EPC."
• The Board examines the substantive issue of unity of invention.
• " The amendments to claim 1 therefore do not result in a change from the first group of inventions to another, unsearched group of inventions addressing a different problem. Rather, the subject matter of the first group of inventions (claim 1 as filed, including feature a) is merely further restricted by the features of the originally filed claim 5 (feature b).
• However, Rule 137(5) EPC is at the outset not the right provision for issues relating to the non-payment of additional search fees, where those were requested. As the Guidelines state in H-II,6.2 : "Rule 137(5) cannot be invoked. It does not apply when the applicant has not paid the search fee in respect of a non-unitary invention relating to the originally filed claims." The legal basis for EP-direct applications is G 2/92. For Euro-PCT applications, where the EPO was ISA, first the procedure of  Rule 164(2) is to be followed.
• Nevertheless, the Board's reasoning on the substantive issue is useful: "document D1, which was used for the a posteriori assessment of unity by the examining division, anticipates not only the features of claim 1, but also those of claims 2 (see D1, figures) and 3 (D1, linear motor 37). Thus, none of claims 1 to 3 has a special technical feature defined as mandatory that could constitute an invention or group of inventions."
• " Feature (a) (tilting axis arranged in the upper half of the container) was originally an optional feature of claim 1. This feature is not anticipated by document D1. It is therefore a special technical feature within the meaning of Rule 44(1) EPC, which determines a contribution to the prior art."
• "It is irrelevant for consideration as an invention that feature (a) is defined in the original version as an optional feature of independent claim 1, because according to Rule 44(2) EPC the decision as to whether the inventions of a group are related to one another in such a way that they implement a single general inventive concept must be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim.
• As a comment, possibly a claim specifying "A widget with feature A and optionally feature B"  must be read as "A widget with feature A or with feature A and B".
• According to the international search report, the optional feature a) of claim 1 is part of the first group of inventions comprising claims 1 to 3 "
• "The claims resubmitted with the statement of grounds of appeal in the version dated 31 July 2019 do indeed include an additional group of features (feature b).
• However, this does not constitute a change to an unsearched invention. Such a change would only occur if claim 1 comprised only feature b) without the special technical feature a) of the first group of inventions (which would correspond to the subject matter of the mandatory features of the unsearched original claim 5). In contrast, the inclusion of the features from claim 5 in combination with feature a) is not a change to the unsearched group of inventions 3.
• This is because feature b) of the original claim 5, like all the features originally dependent on claim 1, was also disclosed in combination with the optional feature a)."

EPO

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

T 1414/18 - The application will be refused

Key points

• This is an examination appeal.
• The Board: “A statement such as "the next procedural step will be summons to oral proceedings during which the application will be refused" made prior to a final decision to refuse a patent application may infringe a party's right to be heard and thus may lead to a substantial procedural violation” (and in this case, such statement indeed was a substantial procedural violation).
• The application was refused for lack of unity of invention.
• "In order to properly assess the compliance with Article 82 EPC, the underlying "invention(s)" is (are) to be established on the basis of the technical problem(s) to be solved according to the description of the application in question (see e.g. W 11/89, [] point 4.1; W 6/97, point 6.3; T 173/06, point 8; T 1888/09, point 2.1). This is apparently also endorsed by the Guidelines for Examination in its applicable edition of November 2017 (see e.g. F-V, section 8, second paragraph, and section 8.1, penultimate sentence). 
• The Guidelines 2017, cited paragraph: "In particular, the reasons must highlight the technical problem(s) addressed by the different (groups of) inventions" [F-V, 4.3 in the 2019 version]
• The phrase "the Guidelines for Examination in its applicable edition of November 2017" appears a bit particular.
  First of all, the Boards needs to decide whether the claims have unity of invention and is not bound by the Guidelines. So there is no applicable edition of the GL in appeal, I would say.
  Secondly, as I understand it, the decision-making body applies the GL as in force of on the date taking the decision, unless there are transitional provisions. So when taking a decision in July 2020, the November 2017 edition is no longer applicable.
  I assume that the Board is not reviewing whether the Examining Division applied the Guidelines correctly in 2017 (that is not the purpose of the appeal procedure in my view when it is about the question whether the claims meet Article 82 or not.).
• The Board: “Claim 1 as originally filed thus describes the invention (i.e. the solution to the above technical problem) from the perspective of the [user equipment] whilst claim 2 as originally filed describes the same invention from the perspective of the network node ”. Therefore these claims have unity of invention according to the Board.
• The Board: “Thus, the reasoning of the examining division drawing upon the aspects of a "single general inventive concept", "special technical features" and "non-unity a-posteriori" is moot and does not need further consideration.”
• I note that Rule 44(1) EPC gives a definition of unity of invention focusing on 'special technical features'. Rule 44(1) was introduced by substantially amending Rule 30 EPC 1973 in 1991. That amendment of the Rules 'introduced the special technical feature as a requirement for unity'  (Visser, 2019 ed., p.501). Rule 44 reads: “the requirement of unity of invention under Article 82 shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features”. I find it difficult to see how reasoning about 'special technical features' can then be 'moot'. 
• The EPC 1973 included a Rule 30 on the interpretation of Article 82 from the Munich Diplomatic Conference.

EPO Headnote
(1) As to unity of invention under Article 82 EPC, only if the application relates to more than one "invention", the notion of "a single general inventive concept" under Article 82 EPC and the concept of the "same or corresponding special technical features" under Rule 44(1) EPC have to be assessed for the purpose of deciding upon unity of invention (see Reasons, point 1).
(2) As to a refund of further search fees under Rule 64(2) EPC, the decision to refuse a patent application may be understood to implicitly contain the decision to refuse the refund of a further search fee, if the examining division's intent is clear (see Reasons, point 4).
(3) A statement such as "the next procedural step will be summons to oral proceedings during which the application will be refused" made prior to a final decision to refuse a patent application may infringe a party's right to be heard and thus may lead to a substantial procedural violation (see Reasons, point 5).

EPO T 1414/18 - link

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The appeal is against the decision of the examining division refusing the present European patent application. The grounds for refusal of the examining division consisted of a mere reference to their latest communication pursuant to Article 94(3) EPC dated 27 March 2017.

II. A partial European search report under Rule 64(1) EPC for the present application had been issued by the search division on 6 November 2014. In an annex to this search report ("sheet B"), the search division indicated that the application contained two inventions and thus did not meet the requirements of unity of invention. The search division found that claim 1 as well as, partially, dependent claims 3 to 13 on file related to the first invention and claim 2 to the second invention, and conducted a search for the first invention pursuant to Rule 64(1) EPC.

In addition, the applicant was invited via EPO Form 1507U to pay a further search fee within two months in order to have the second invention searched, too.

III. After payment of the further search fee, a full European search report covering both inventions was issued on 26 March 2015.

IV. In a communication under Article 94(3) EPC of 22 April 2015, the examining division confirmed the search division's view on lack of unity under Article 82 EPC.

V. In their reply of 1 September 2015, the applicant contested the examining division's assessment of unity of the invention and requested a refund of the further search fee. This request was maintained by their submission of 13 June 2016.

VI. In their further communications under Article 94(3) EPC of 3 December 2015 and 27 March 2017, the examining division maintained their non-unity objection. In particular, the communication of 27 March 2017 included the following statement (cf. point 1, last paragraph):

"In the present case, two searches needed to be performed as claim 1 discloses a broad claim relating to scheduling meanwhile claim 2 is restricted to specific features describing overlapping frames. As seen by the documents cited in the search report, two searches were performed and different documents were found."

In addition, that communication comprised the following closing (cf. points 4 and 5):

"4 As to the reimbursement of the search fee. The preliminary opinion of the examining division is to refuse the reimbursement of such fee ...

5 The next procedural step will be summons to oral proceedings during which the application will be refused (Article 97(2) EPC)."

VII. In reaction to the above communication, the applicant withdrew the request for oral proceedings and requested an appealable "decision according to the state of the file".

VIII. In the statement of grounds of appeal, the appellant requests that the decision under appeal be set aside and, as a main request, that a patent be granted on the basis of the claims subject to the decision under appeal, or, in the alternative, on the basis of the claims of an auxiliary request filed with the statement of grounds of appeal.

It is also requested (again) that the further search fee be refunded.

Reasons for the Decision

1. Unity of invention - originally filed claims (Article 82 EPC)

1.1 According to Article 82 EPC, a patent application "shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept".

That means that only if the application relates to more than one "invention", the notion of "a single general inventive concept" under Article 82 EPC and the concept of the "same or corresponding special technical features" under Rule 44(1) EPC come into play, i.e. have to be assessed for the purpose of deciding upon the question of unity of invention. As a consequence, it is first to be determined whether the present application covers only one or several "inventions".

1.2 In order to properly assess the compliance with Article 82 EPC, the underlying "invention(s)" is(are) to be established on the basis of the technical problem(s) to be solved according to the description of the application in question (see e.g. W 11/89, OJ 1993, 225, point 4.1; W 6/97, point 6.3; T 173/06, point 8; T 1888/09, point 2.1). This is apparently also endorsed by the Guidelines for Examination in its applicable edition of November 2017 (see e.g. F-V, section 8, second paragraph, and section 8.1, penultimate sentence).

1.3 In the present case, the original application as a whole (i.e. including the description and drawings) refers consistently to a single invention, the objective of which is "to provide a method to configure timing resource so that data transmission/reception for D2D communication and normal communication do not interfere with each other" (see e.g. paragraph [0008] of the description as filed). According to paragraph [0029] of the original description, "... [t]he process 50 used for the network node may be in coordination with the process 40 used for a UE ...".

T 0145/13 - Rule 137(5) is not for non-searched claims

Key points

• In this examination appeal, the ED did not admit under Rule 137(5) EPC a request wherein claim 1 was amended to include the feature of claim 30 as pending when the supplementary European search report was established, because that claim 30 was directed to a fifth invention and no additional search fee was paid for that claim.
• However, Rule 137(5) requires that subject-matter is unsearched subject-matter and does not combine with parts of the originally claimed invention to form a single general inventive concept. Therefore, Rule 137(5) EPC does not apply. 
• As a comment, the Guidelines expressly say so in H-II. 7.2: " Rule 137(5) cannot be invoked. It does not apply when the applicant has not paid the search fee in respect of a non-unitary invention relating to the originally filed claims."
• Rather, Rule 164(2) (in the applicable version) should have been applied. " It is the intention of the second alternative of Rule 164(2) EPC to prevent the applicant from switching during the grant proceedings from searched subject-matter to ­subject-matter which had originally been claimed but not searched due to non-payment of the additional search fee (see T 442/11).
• As a note, Rule 164 does not spell out the consequence of not paying the additional search fee, in the applicable version it just mentioned that an invitation is issued to restrict the application. The actual legal basis for not admitting the request is G 2/92 and Rule 137(3) EPC (edit 07.10.2017: Rule 137(3) is not relevant, the claim is still to be refused even if filed in time under Rule 137(3) EPC). 
• The Board reviews whether the finding of lack of unity of invention in the ESR was correct. The ED based on a posteriori lack of unity in view of D1, but the cited paragraph of D1 is " merely an outlook on various possible future developments"  and does not provide an enabling disclosure. Therefore, it can not support the alleged lack of unity of invention. Claim 30 should have been searched and the request is admitted.. 

Reasons for the Decision

1. Main request

1.1 Rule 137(5) EPC

1.1.1 The claims of the main request are those of the first auxiliary request before the examining division. In the decision, the division held that this request was not accepted into the procedure for violation of Rule 137(5) EPC, because the features "adaptive cruise control", "collision warning or avoidance", "exterior light control imaging", "blind spot warning" and "night vision" of claim 1 of this request formerly constituted the fifth and unsearched invention as identified in the supplementary European search report (see point 5 of the decision).

T 2248/12 - Unity

Key points

• The Board notes, following established case law that " The assessment of unity of invention requires as a precondition the analysis of the technical problem or problems underlying the respective groups of inventions, because only then is it possible to decide whether or not the same or corresponding special technical features exist for the different embodiments under consideration" 
• In this examination appeal, the Board finds that: " The "special technical features" [] common to the three variants S96C, R170C and K179C are that (i) the residues present at the three positions in the native protein are substituted by a cysteine, (ii) the three positions lie outside of the receptor contact region [] and (iii) these positions display a high solvent accessibility. The technical effects resulting from these features are that the three variants are readily PEGylated, and yet substantially retain their biological activity []. Consequently, the board considers that the technical problem underlying the three variants (see point 4 above) is the provision of Apo2L variants which are readily PEGylated and biologically active.
• As a note, this decision shows that, a rejection for lack of unity of invention requires an in-depth analysis of the patent application, not an analysis of the claims only.

EPO T 2248/12 -  link

Reasons for the Decision

Unity of invention (Article 82 EPC)

1. In the European grant procedure, the ultimate responsibility for establishing whether an application complies with the requirements of Article 82 EPC rests with the examining division, which has the duty to review the unity assessment made by the search division. The fact that the appellant has not paid further search fees does not prohibit this review (see e.g. decision T 631/97, headnote and points 3.6 to 3.8 and 3.9.2 of the Reasons).

T 1126/11 - Unity of invention

Key points:

• In this case, claim 1 was amended by adding a feature that was originally presented in a dependent claim that had not been searched. In the search report, the claims were considered to lack unity of invention and to define four inventions. The amended claim was not admitted (Rule 137(5) EPC) and the application was refused as lacking claims (Article 78(1)(c) EPC).
• However, Rule 137(5) EPC requires not only that the amendment relates to non-searched subject matter, it also requires that the amended claim lacks unity of invention with the claims pending at the time of the EPO search [note 08.10.2017: see T0386/12] as filed as searched. The Board finds that the application, in view of the description, concerns only one invention, therefore the claim should have been admitted.
• "Es mag sein, dass im Einzelfall auch abhängige Ansprü­che Erfindungen oder Gruppen von Erfindungen bilden. Hier ist dies jedoch nicht der Fall. Beansprucht wird ein Gegenstand, der mit der ursprünglich beanspruchten Erfindung durch eine einzige erfinderische Idee verbun­den ist. Letztere wird am einzigen Ausführungsb­eispiel deutlich, das eine Chipkarte in Kommunikation mit einem Endgerät zeigt. Die über­mit­telten Kommandos betref­fen hierbei eine Geldkar­ten­zahlung []. Die technische Aufgabe ist die Erhöhung der Ausführungs­geschwindigkeit des tragbaren Datenträgers, d.h. der Chipkarte []. Folglich be­inhaltet der Gegenstand der Erfindung, der als Lösung dieser Aufgabe beansprucht wird, eine einzige erfin­derische Idee."
• The applicant had paid additional search fees for the claims relating to the deemed second and third invention. These fees are refunded.
• The appeal fee was not refunded, as an incorrect finding of lack of unity of invention is not a procedural violation.

EPO T 1126/11 - link

Entscheidungsgründe

[...]

3. Nichtzulassung und fehlende Einheitlichkeit

3.1 Die Prüfungsabteilung hat von der Recherche an bis einschließlich zur Zurückweisungsentscheidung den Einwand erhoben, dass der ursprüngliche Anspruchssatz nicht einheitlich sei. Er enthalte vier Erfindungen.

3.2 Der Anmelder hat zusätzliche Recherchegebühren für die Erfindungen 2-3 bezahlt, jedoch nicht für die 4. Erfin­dung (siehe Schreiben vom 17. Januar 2008).

3.3 Der Anmelder hat während der Prüfungsphase zwei geän­derte Ansprüche 1 eingereicht, die Anspruch 1 des zur Entscheidung stehenden Haupt- und Hilfsantrags bilde­ten. Sie enthalten beide das Merkmal einer Kommu­nika­tion mit einem Endgerät, das schon im ursprünglichen Anspruch 12 vorhanden war.

3.4 Da dieser zur nicht recherchierten 4. Erfindung gehört, hat die Prüfungsabteilung beide geänderte Anspruchs­sätze nach Regel 137(5) und (3) EPÜ nicht zugelassen und die Anmeldung wegen fehlender Ansprüche nach Artikel 78(1)c) und 113(2) EPÜ zurückgewiesen.

T 0755/14 - Unity of invention a posteriori: requires inventions

EPO T 755/14

For the decision, click here.

Key points

• The Board explains that for a lack of unity of invention of dependent claims a posteriori, it is required that the features of these claims define inventive subject matter. In case the dependent claims are considered to lack inventive step, they can not cause a lack of unity of invention.
• " Bei einer konsistenten Prüfung der Einheitlichkeit a posteriori zum Zeitpunkt der Erstellung des Teilrecherchenberichts oder aber spätestens zum Zeitpunkt der Erstellung des Recherchenberichts hätte die Recherchenabteilung mithin feststellen können und müssen, dass die zusätzlichen Merkmale der abhängigen Ansprüche 2, 4, 8, 9 und 10 jeweils keinen Beitrag zu dem zum Zeitpunkt der Versendung der Aufforderung nach Regel 64 (1) EPÜ verfügbaren Stand der Technik leisten und mithin keine "besondere technische Merkmale" im Sinne der Regel 44 (1) EPÜ darstellen können []. Demnach können die Ansprüche 2, 4, 8, 9 und 10 per definitionem gar keine Erfindungen im Sinne der Regel 44 (1) EPÜ darstellen. Der erhobene Einwand der mangelnden Einheitlichkeit a posteriori war mithin unbegründet."
• A similar reasoning is given in T 0129/14 at [5.4.]: " However, for each group of claimed inventions, the Examining Division should have identified special technical features and established a respective technical problem solved over document D1, i.e. the prior art considered in its assessment. This is not only clear from the established case law of the boards of appeal, but also directly derivable from the wording of Rule 44(1) EPC, which explicitly mentions, for each claimed invention, "a contribution [...] over the prior art".

Entscheidungsgründe

1. Angesichts der erstinstanzlichen Umstände des Falles hält es die Kammer für angebracht, kurz auf die Vorschrift der Einheitlichkeit sowie auf die etablierte Rechtsprechung zu dieser Vorschrift einzugehen.

1.1 Nach Artikel 82 EPÜ darf eine Anmeldung nur eine einzige Erfindung enthalten oder eine Gruppe von Erfindungen, die untereinander in der Weise verbunden sind, dass sie eine einzige allgemeine erfinderische Idee verwirklichen. Sind in einer Anmeldung mehrere Erfindungen beansprucht, ist das Erfordernis der Einheitlichkeit der Erfindung nach Artikel 82 EPÜ nur dann erfüllt, wenn zwischen diesen Erfindungen ein technischer Zusammenhang besteht, der in einem oder mehreren gleichen oder entsprechenden "besonderen technischen Merkmalen" zum Ausdruck kommt (Regel 44 (1) Satz 1 EPÜ). Unter dem Begriff "besondere technische Merkmale" sind diejenigen technischen Merkmale zu verstehen, die einen Beitrag jeder beanspruchten Erfindung als Ganzes zum Stand der Technik bestimmen (Regel 44 (1) Satz 2 EPÜ). Gemäß ständiger Rechtsprechung der Beschwerdekammern meint der Begriff "Beitrag" in diesem Zusammenhang einen neuen und offensichtlich erfinderischen Beitrag zum Stand der Technik (siehe die Rechtsprechung der Beschwerdekammern des Europäischen Patentamts, 7. Auflage 2013, kurz "RsprBK 2013", II.B.5.1 und 5.2).