R 0016/13 - Successful petition for review

EPO Headnote

Das Recht nach Artikel 113 (1) EPÜ, gehört zu werden, ist verletzt, wenn eine Beschwerdekammer zur Begründung ihrer Entscheidung ex officio im Verfahren nicht vorgebrachte Gründe heranzieht, ohne der dadurch benachteiligten Partei, Gelegenheit gegeben zu haben, zu diesen Gründen Stellung zu nehmen und, soweit die Patentinhaberin betroffen ist, entsprechende neue Anträge einzureichen, es sei denn, der Partei ist es nach dem Verfahrensablauf ersichtlich möglich gewesen, aus eigenem Fachwissen sich die Argumentation der Kammer zu erschließen.

Informal translation
The right to be heard under Article 113(1) EPC is violated when a Board of Appeal in support of its decision draws ex officio upon reasons which were not put forward in the procedure, without giving, to the party adversely affected thereby, an opportunity to comment on these reasons, and, as far as the patentee is concerned,  an opportunity to submit new requests, unless it was clearly possible for that party to infer the reasoning of the Board based on the course of the proceedings and his own expertise.


R 16/13 published 27.05.2015 " Kristallines Mikronisat des Tiotropiumbromids" 
Dated 08.12.2014 - Enlarged Board of Appeal - [B] - DE - for the decision, click here

Informal summary

• This is the fifth successful petition of review (after R15/11, R21/11, R3/10 and R7/09).
• In review of T 0379/10.
• The Opposition Division had considered the main request to lack inventive step with D2 as closest prior art.
• In appeal, the Patentee had argued that D24 was the closest prior art. A technical effect was supported by D11A, a report of comparative experiments demonstrating the technical effect (better stability) over D24.
• During Oral Proceedings before the Board, the debate was whether D2 or D24 (and possibly D25) was the closest prior art.
• The Board thereafter announced that it considered the main request to lack inventive step over D25, without giving specific reasons and refusing to give these when requested by the Patentee. In the written decision at [4.5], the Board considers that the alleged technical effect is not credible based on report D11A because some of the parameters specified in claim 1 were not specified therein. Hence, the objective technical problem was providing alternative micronized compositions.
• This results in the following reason of the Enlarged Board: 

2.2 Der dafür maßgebliche Grund [for not accepting the technical effect], D11A gebe die Parameterwerte des mit dem Stand der Technik verglichenen Produkts unvollständig wieder, so dass die dort dokumentierten Vergleichsversuche zur Stützung der geltend gemachten verbesserten Stabilität und zur Bejahung einer erfinderischen Tätigkeit nicht ausreichten, wurde jedoch nach den Feststellungen der Großen Beschwerdekammer in dem gesamten, der Entscheidung vorausgegangenen Verfahren nicht angesprochen. Er ist weder von den Parteien vorgetragen worden, noch hat ihn die Kammer von sich aus zur Sprache gebracht, noch ist er in der mündlichen Verhandlung erörtert worden. Dies hat die Einsprechende im vorliegenden Verfahren nicht geleugnet, sondern sogar implizit durch ihren Vortrag bestätigt.

• Hence, the reason of the Board for finding that D11A did not make the technical effect credible was that D11A did not show that the " inventive"  product had in fact all properties as defined in claim 1. This issue had not previously been raised by anyone in the proceedings.
• The Enlarged Board concludes that the issue was introduced by the Board through the examination of its own motion under A114(1). ([5.1]).
•  Although this is in principle allowed, with the following general proviso regarding the right to be heard: 

5.2 Dagegen ist grundsätzlich nichts einzuwenden. Wenn die Beschwerdekammer jedoch entscheidungserhebliche Überlegungen anstellt, die bisher im Verfahren von keiner Seite angesprochen worden sind, hätte sie diese den Parteien im Ladungszusatz oder spätestens in der mündlichen Verhandlung zur Kenntnis bringen müssen. Etwas anderes gilt allenfalls, wenn die Kammer berechtigterweise hätte annehmen dürfen, die Patentinhaberin und die Einsprechende bzw. ihre Vertreter würden ohne Zweifel aufgrund ihres Fachwissens und ihrer Erfahrung mit Vergleichsversuchen in Patentangelegenheiten von sich aus die fragliche Argumentation der Kammer erkennen und in ihren Parteivortrag einbeziehen können.

•  In the present case, this was not complied with, basically because the Patentee had no reason to doubt its interpratation of D11A.

 [5.4] (...) Deshalb hat sich ihr keine Möglichkeit eröffnet, die Auffassung der Kammer, in D11A seien die Parameter des mit dem Stand der Technik verglichenen, erfindungsgemäßen Mikronisats nicht vollständig angegeben bzw. die drei letzten in Anspruch 1 aufgelisteten Parameter fehlten vollständig, zu erkennen und sich dazu zu äußern.

• After further noting that the Board had refused to indicate its reasons after announcing its finding of lack of inventive step over D25, the Enlarged Board finds a violation of the right to be heard, and sets aside the decision under appeal and the case is remitted to the (same) Board. 

T 0359/11 - Abuse of R 137(3)

Keypoint

The ED was incorrect in not admitting any of the requests under R137(3) on the ground that although the claim amendments did address the objection under A123(2), it did not address the objection of lack of inventive step (with which the applicant disagreed). (EPO headnote is about separate issue of declaration of no search)

Quote
The Board wishes to point out that when faced with an objection raised by the examining division that the application fails to meet a requirement of the EPC, the applicant is under no obligation to amend the application documents. An equally legitimate response open to the applicant is to argue that the objection is not well-founded. [...] By refusing its consent to the main request, the Examining Division effectively took the position that any admissible request had to incorporate amendments aimed at overcoming its objections under Article 56 EPC. This unreasonably deprived the applicant of the opportunity of simply disagreeing with the Examining Division and obtaining a decision based on a set of claims, duly admitted into the procedure, reflecting what had been its fundamental position throughout.

Analysis

It is unfortunate that this simple appeal took four years, to correct a manifestly wrong decision of the Examining Division.

T 0359/11 of 19.05.2015

Dated 13.05.2015 - Board 3.4.03 - [C] - for the decision, click here

Reasons for the Decision

T 0037/12 - Handwritten amendments in appeal

Key point

• Handwritten amendments are allowable in appeal. 

EPO Headnote (informal translation)
1. When applying the general reference in Rule 99(3) EPC it is required, according to its development and purpose, to assess whether and how the referred rules are to be applied in the specific circumstances.
2. Applying Rules 49(8) and 50(1) EPC equally to documents filed during oral proceedings before the Board of Appeal, would contradict procedural economy and is not necessary on other grounds.
3. The introduction of Rule 99(3) EPC therefore gives no reason for abandoning the established practice according to which documents filed during oral proceedings before the Boards of Appeal may contain legible handwritten amendments.

This post was kept in stock for some time.

T 0037/12 of 26.03.2015

Dated 02.10.2014 - Board 3.2.01 (Pricolo, Marx, Guntz) - publication B - in German - for the decision, click here

EPO Headnote

1. Bei Anwendung der Generalverweisung in Regel 99 (3) EPÜ ist nach deren Entstehungsgeschichte und Zweck im Einzelfall zu prüfen, ob und wie eine der Regeln, auf die verwiesen wird, auf einen bestimmten Sachverhalt anzuwenden ist.

2. Eine entsprechende Anwendung der Regeln 49 (8) und 50 (1) EPÜ auf Unterlagen, die während der mündlichen Verhandlung vor der Beschwerdekammer eingereicht werden, würde der Verfahrensökonomie widersprechen und ist auch nicht aus anderen Gründen geboten.

3. Die Einführung von Regel 99 (3) EPÜ hat daher keinen Anlass gegeben, die jahrelang geübte Praxis aufzugeben, wonach in der mündlichen Verhandlung vor der Beschwerdekammer eingereichte Unterlagen gut lesbare handschriftliche Änderungen aufweisen dürfen.

[Decision omitted] 

Art 53(1)(d) UPCA: Hearing witnesses

Article 53 Means of evidence 

1. In proceedings before the Court, the means of giving or obtaining evidence shall include in particular the following: [...]
d) hearing witnesses;

Analysis

Article 117(1) EPC is almost identical to Article 53 UPCA. However, whereas the EPO can not summon witnesses (and attending oral proceedings is not obligatory anyway, see Rule 120 EPC), and can not hear witnesses under oath, the UPC can.

According to Rule 179.2 RoP (17th draft), the Court may impose a fine on a witness who fails to appear before the Court or refuses to give evidence. Moreover, the witness must make a declaration " that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth." (R 178.1). Giving false evidence is seen as something within the "criminal jurisdiction" of the competent authorities of the Contracting Member States (R179.4).

Notewhorty, and at first sight problematic, is R 178.7, stating that a witness may give evidence in a language other than the language of proceedings "with the consent of the Court" .  It seems doubtful whether someone can be obliged to give evidence in a language he does not master. Compare Rule4(3) EPC.

EPO Case Law Week 21

Notewhorty decisions published 18.05-22.05.2015

T 0755/09 - Examination appeal of (US originating) application with inventors as co-applicants, appeal mentions only company as appellant, appeal inadmissible (appellant did not attend oral proceedings and did not request correction under R 139)

T 0359/11 - Notorious computer - EPO Headnote: " Where the relevant search authority has stated, either in a search report or in a declaration that no search report will be established, that it is not necessary to cite any documentary evidence of the prior art on the grounds that all of the technical features of the claimed invention are notorious, it is always incumbent upon the examining division to consider whether an additional search is necessary. The criterion to be applied is that if the invention as claimed contains at least one technical feature which is not notorious, the application should normally not be refused for lack of inventive step without performing an additional search."

T 1211/10 - Invention about online shopping not excluded - "Although the examples given in the description relate principally to commercial applications, in particular to online shopping, the board considers the invention not to fall under the exclusions listed in Article 52(2)(c) EPC. In particular, the board does not accept the reasoning in the appealed decision that the problem to be solved by the computing devices used in the invention is "not a technical problem but a business one"; see point 1.5 of the reasons. The board considers that, contrary to the finding in the decision, the aim of the invention is token-based authentication by means of a mobile phone, which is a technical problem. The particular application context in which this problem is solved, i.e. online shopping, does not detract from the technical nature of this problem."

T 0297/11 - Implicit disclosure - " The Board observes that it is a generally applied principle that for concluding lack of novelty, there must be a direct and unambiguous disclosure in the state of the art which would inevitably lead the skilled person to subject-matter falling within the scope of what is claimed. In this context an "implicit disclosure" on which the novelty attack of the Appellant is based means no more than a clear and unambiguous consequence of what is explicitly disclosed (see T 1523/07)." (A123(2) EPC)

Update with decisions of 22.05.2015

T 0335/14 - clarity - " The Board therefore considers that the explicit recitation of something which is implicit is not required as it amounts to a mere tautology."

T 1710/13 - A 123(2) / A 84  trap - application as filed uses "mindestens als 60 mN/m" in claim 1. Correction into " mindestens 60 mN/m contravenes A 123(2), amendment into "mehr als 60 mN/m" contravenes A 123(2) as well, "mindestens als 60 mN/m" contravenes A 84. Patent revoked.

T 1539/11 - case law about parameters applies to other features as well. Feature claim 28: "the channeling agent forms passages for moisture transmission through the composition" -
"The question whether the skilled person will always be able to unambiguously distinguish a composition "containing throughgoing channels as defined in Claim 28 at issue from a composition not containing them or containing only a very small amount of them is an issue of clarity (Article 84 EPC) rather than an issue of sufficiency of the disclosure.

Even assuming for the sake of argument that a problem of this type would arise in the case of structures prepared using a relatively low amount of the channeling agent, it has not been shown that such problem would actually "permeate the whole claim" and hence "deprive the skilled person of the promise of the invention" (see e.g. decision T 0608/07).

T 1480/12 - Combining claims, still need to file claims set

Key points

• Amended sets of claims need to be filed on separate sheets, also in appeal, even if you just combine two claims.

T 1480/12 - 23.01.2015

Dated 10.12.2014 - Board 3.4.03 - publication C - for the decision, click here

This post was kept in stock for some time.

T 2130/11 - Unclear disclaimers and disclaiming more than necessary

Key point

• A disclaimer may remove more than necessary for restoring novelty is allowable if this is necessary to keep the disclaimer concise and clear. 

This post was kept in stock for some time.

EPO Headnote


The difficulty for the applicant or patent proprietor in formulating an allowable disclaimer cannot justify an exception in the application of Article 84 EPC which is not foreseen in the Convention. Not even a condition on the allowability of a disclaimer made explicit in a decision of the Enlarged Board as the condition that a "disclaimer should not remove more than is necessary to restore novelty" (G 1/03, point 3 in the reasons, second paragraph, last sentence) may have as a consequence the watering down of one of the requirements of the EPC. The requirements of Article 84 EPC must therefore apply for a disclaimer as for any other feature of a patent claim (see point 2.9).


On the other side, the condition that the disclaimer should not remove more than is necessary to restore novelty should be applied while taking into consideration its purpose, namely that the "necessity for a disclaimer is not an opportunity for the applicant to reshape his claims arbitrarily" (G 1/03, point 3 in the reasons, second paragraph, last but one sentence). In this respect situations can be foreseen, in which, while fulfilment of the condition taken in a strictly literal way would not be possible, a definition of the disclaimed subject-matter which satisfies the requirements of Article 84 EPC and fulfils the purpose of the condition (i.e. to avoid an arbitrary reshaping of the claims) may be achievable. In other words, a disclaimer removing more than strictly necessary to restore novelty would not be in contradiction with the spirit of G 1/03, if it were required to satisfy Article 84 EPC and it did not lead to an arbitrary reshaping of the claims (see point 2.10).

T 2130/11 - 02.03.2015

Dated 02.12.2014 - Board 3.3.07 - publication B - for the decision, click here

[text omitted]