T 0764/14 - Sufficiency of parameter

Key points

• " Any "errors" possibly associated to the procedures implied or described in the patent in suit for measuring the surface Na baseline and the % of surface Na removed, do not prevent the skilled person from carrying out all those embodiments of the claimed process wherein the measured amount of Na in the pretreatment solutions is well above 25% of the measured Na baseline, [which] certainly comply with requirement (A)." 
• The Board thus holds that the ambiguity deriving from such possibly unavoidable but limited "errors" does not "permeate the whole claim" and hence does not "deprive the skilled person of the promise of the invention" in the sense of e.g. decision T 0608/07 [].

EPO T 0764/14 - link

Reasons for the Decision

Main Request - Sufficiency

[...] 3.3.3 Hence, for the Board, at least in all those embodiments of the claimed process in which the (overall) amount of Na ions found in the pretreatment solutions is well above 25% of the measured surface Na baseline (possibly slightly higher than the actual amount of surface Na in the untreated carrier), the fraction of this amount that actually derives from surface Na must also inevitably be above the 25% of the actual amount of surface Na present in the untreated carrier. In other words, any "errors" possibly associated to the procedures implied or described in the patent in suit for measuring the surface Na baseline and the % of surface Na removed, do not prevent the skilled person from carrying out all those embodiments of the claimed process wherein the measured amount of Na in the pretreatment solutions is well above 25% of the measured Na baseline, certainly comply with requirement (A).

The Board thus holds that the ambiguity deriving from such possibly unavoidable but limited "errors" does not "permeate the whole claim" and hence does not "deprive the skilled person of the promise of the invention" in the sense of e.g. decision T 0608/07 of 27 April 2009, Reasons, 2.5.2).

T 2171/14 - Added subject matter is substantive

Key points

• " The opposition division drew a distinction between what it termed "formal arguments" [added subject-matter and insufficient disclosure] which it did "not want to get tied down in", and "the fundamental question" concerning "whether the actual subject-matter described in fact warrants the patent". " The ground for opposition under Article 100(c) EPC and the corresponding requirement of Article 123(2) EPC in regard to any amendment carried out on the patent in the course of the opposition and opposition appeal proceedings are of equal fundamental importance compared to other requirements, such as e.g. novelty, inventive step or sufficiency of disclosure, when it comes to deciding whether a patent can be maintained. Also, extension of subject-matter in the terms of Article 123(2) EPC is not a question of "form" of the patent, which might fall under the heading of a "formal requirement", but a substantive one. The standard used by the opposition division, concerning whether the invention "warrants the patent" is not a legal standard recognised by the EPC, not least since such a standard introduces undefined subjective criteria." 
• The lack of reasoning of the OD for rejecting the objections under Article 100(c) forms a substantial procedural violation. However, the case is not remitted, because the point was decided in favour of the appellant-proprietor, who requested the remittal. Together with the requested acceleration of the opposition procedure, these are "special reasons"  as required under Article 11 RPBA. The decision was given publication code [C] because of this decision not to remit.
• The patent is revoked. 

EPO T 2171/14 - link

Reasons for the Decision

Remittal

1. According to Article 111(1) EPC, second sentence, the Board of Appeal may either exercise any power within the competence of the department which was responsible for the decision appealed or remit the case to that department for further prosecution.

2. An absolute right for the parties to have each objection decided upon by two instances does not follow from this provision of the EPC. Rather it confers discretionary power to the Boards of Appeal, under due consideration of all circumstances of the case, whether or not to remit the case to the department of first instance.

3. Nevertheless, according to Article 11 of the Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal (RPBA), a Board shall remit a case to the department of first instance if fundamental deficiencies are apparent in the first instance proceedings, unless special reasons present themselves for doing otherwise.

4. Fundamental deficiencies which may justify the immediate remittal include for example the lack of a reasoned decision (Rule 111(2) EPC).

The impugned decision presents a fundamental deficiency in that there is no reasoned decision in regard to the specific objections under Article 100(c) EPC made against Auxiliary Request V, which objections had been made originally against the main request and, as specifically stated in the minutes of the oral proceedings (see point VII above), had been maintained against the subject-matter of claim 1 of Auxiliary Request V found allowable by the opposition division.

5.1 As is apparent from point VIII above, the reasons given under the heading "Auxiliary Request V - disclosure" in points 36 to 40 of the decision address merely the amendments introduced during the opposition proceedings in claim 1 of auxiliary request V. Although points 39 and 40 comprise some allusions to the issues arising in respect of the various objections raised under Article 100(c) EPC, these cannot be considered to constitute a reasoned decision. There is no discussion of the arguments provided by the opponents in support of their objections and the cited passages of the description refer to the patent and not to the application as filed. Basis for the division's statement that the description "makes it clear that the baseplate should contain those components considered necessary" is not given; at least the cited paragraphs 19 and 43 of the patent do not contain such a disclosure. The final statement in point 40 of the decision, according to which there would be "no necessity apparent that all components must always be present", ignores the very principle to be applied when examining objections raised under Article 100(c) and 123(2) EPC, which is not about "necessity". Rather, the principle of direct and unambiguous disclosure of the subject-matter resulting from an amendment, as confirmed by the Enlarged Board of Appeal in its decision G 2/10 (OJ EPO 2012, 376, point 4.3), must be considered (see also below).

J 0011/12 - Claims fees upon entry

EPO Headnote
Wurden die Anspruchsgebühren gemäß Regel 162(1) EPÜ innerhalb der Frist nach Regel 159(1) EPÜ entrichtet und ist keine Mitteilung über eine Fristversäumung nach Regel 162(2) Satz 1 EPÜ ergangen, sind für zusätzliche Ansprüche, die unter Regel 161(1) EPÜ eingereicht wurden, unter Regel 162 EPÜ keine zusätzlichen Anspruchsgebühren zu entrichten.

Note: Rule 162(2) EPC is amended as of 1 January 2017 to stipulate that the claims fees are calculated on the basis of amended claims filed in response to the Rule 161 invitation (see OJ EPO 2016, A102)

Key points

• If the number of claims is increased to more than 15 with the response under Rule 161 EPC, no claims fees are due (if the number of claims upon entry was 15 or less).
• On the other hand, the refund of claims fees paid upon entry if the number of claims is reduced with the response under Rule 161 EPC is not affected.

EPO J 0011/12 ( EPO J 11/12) - link

Entscheidungsgründe

1. Zulässigkeit der Beschwerde

1.1 Die Beschwerde ist zulässig (vgl. Sachverhalt und Anträge, Punkt II).

2. Entstehungsgeschichte der Regeln 161 und 162 EPÜ

2.1 Die Regelung der Pflicht zur Zahlung von Anspruchsgebühren beim Eintritt von Euro-PCT-Anmeldungen in die europäische Phase geht auf die Regel 104b EPÜ 1973 zurück, welche anlässlich der konstituierenden Sitzung des Verwaltungsrats der Europäischen Patentorganisation in die Ausführungsordnung eingefügt wurde und am 1. Februar 1978 in Kraft trat (ABl. EPA 1978, 12). In dieser Bestimmung wurde bezüglich der Anspruchsgebühren lediglich auf Regel 31 EPÜ 1973 verwiesen, welche (entsprechend Regel 45 EPÜ) die Anspruchsgebühren für (direkte) europäische Patentanmeldungen regelte.

2.2 Die Änderung der Regel 104b EPÜ 1973 per 1. Juni 1991 (ABl. EPA 1991, 4) bewirkte im Hinblick auf die Anspruchsgebühren lediglich ein paar Klarstellungen, hauptsächlich bezüglich der Fristen (vgl. Dokument CA/52/90 Rev. 1, S. 51ff.). Gleichzeitig wurde in der neuen Regel 104c(3) EPÜ 1973 (analog zur Regel 31(2) EPÜ 1973) festgelegt, dass die nicht rechtzeitige Entrichtung einer Anspruchsgebühr als Verzicht auf den entsprechenden Patentanspruch gelte. Hinsichtlich der fälligen Anspruchsgebühren sollte für eine internationale Anmeldung vom Zeitpunkt ihrer Übermittlung an das EPA an dasselbe gelten wie für eine europäische Patentanmeldung (J 9/84, ABl. EPA 1985, 233, Punkt 5).

2.3 Die Nachfrist nach Regel 31(1) EPÜ 1973 für die Zahlung nicht entrichteter Anspruchsgebühren galt - durch den Verweis in Regel 104b EPÜ 1973 - auch für internationale Anmeldungen. Eine Reduktion der Anzahl der Ansprüche innerhalb der Nachfrist für die Zahlung der Anspruchsgebühren unter Regel 31(1) EPÜ 1973 führte nicht zu einer Reduktion der Anspruchsgebühren (J 6/96).

2.4 Die am 1. März 2000 in Kraft getretene neue Regel 110 EPÜ 1973 (ABl. EPA 1999, 690) schuf eine neue Rechtsgrundlage für die Erhebung von Anspruchsgebühren in der europäischen Phase und legte fest, auf welcher Grundlage sie zu berechnen sind. Die neue Struktur (Berechnungsgrundlage und Zahlungsfrist) beruhte auf der Anzahl der beim Eintritt in die europäische Phase vorhandenen Ansprüche, trug aber - "zugunsten des Anmelders" - auch dem Umstand Rechnung, dass sich die Anzahl der Ansprüche durch eine Änderung der internationalen Anmeldung verringern kann; in diesem Fall sollten zuviel entrichtete Anspruchsgebühren zurückerstattet werden (Mitteilung vom 13. Oktober 1999 betreffend die Änderung der Ausführungsordnung zum EPÜ, ABl. 1999, 696, Punkt 10). Die Berechnung der Anspruchsgebühren und die Rückzahlung allenfalls zu viel bezahlter Gebühren wurde in den Regeln 110(2) und 110(3) EPÜ 1973 in gleicher Weise geregelt wie in den im vorliegenden Fall anzuwendenden Regeln 162(2) und 162(3) EPÜ.

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 0454/13 - Remote field

Key points

• The opponent alleges lack of inventive step based on D6 -D8.
• The Board is not persuaded. "D6 to D8 are however from a field remote from the field of biological testing [of claim 1], i.e. these documents all concern the manufacturing of semiconductor devices [] and therefore cannot give any hint of how to solve the problem of improving temperature uniformity between a plurality of samples of biological material located on a microcard." 

EPO T 0454/13 - link


Summary of Facts and Submissions

The sole independent claim of the patent as granted reads as follows:

"1. A sample block apparatus (30) for a thermal cycler configured for use with a microcard (12) containing a plurality of samples of biological material, comprising:
- a sample block (34) comprising an upper surface (52) configured for resting a microcard (12) thereon, the upper surface (52) including surface irregularities for defining spaces (54, 56) between the surface irregularities and a microcard (12) that may be positioned thereon;
 - a vacuum source in fluid communication with the space (54,56) []; and
 - a temperature control system []."

Reasons for the Decision

2. Inventive step

2.1 The invention

The invention concerns a sample block apparatus and a method for maintaining a microcard on a sample block.

2.2 Closest prior art

2.2.1 Appellant 2 proposed any of documents D1 to D4 as representing the closest prior art.

T 0266/15 - Clarity in opposition

Key point

• "The appellant argued that the patent in suit did not disclose, in a manner sufficiently clear and complete, how to obtain the claimed antimicrobial composite, in which the antimicrobial metal in elemental form was present in an amount of from 10 mg/m² to 600 mg/m² of composite. It further argued that this feature was not clear.
• Claim 11 as granted already required a (different) specific amount of antimicrobial metal in elemental form per surface of composite. Thus, any lack of clarity which could derive from that relative amount was already present in the claims as granted, and cannot be examined in these opposition appeal proceedings (G 3/14). Article 100(b) EPC was not invoked by the appellant in its notice of opposition. Such a fresh ground could only be examined during these appeal proceedings with the consent of the respondent (G 10/91), which had not been given." 
• As a note, the holding of G 10/91 regarding fresh grounds does not apply to any issues caused by the amendments made during opposition (T 0739/08). Although the Board may have considered that the attack could equally have been raised against claim 11 as granted, and is therefore not admissible, they don't say this.

T 0266/15 - link


Reasons for the Decision
First auxiliary request


4. Amendments


The appellant has not raised any objections under Article 123(2) EPC further to those already examined with respect to the main request, which the board considered not convincing for the reasons already explained (see point 2.2. above).


Clarity and sufficiency of disclosure


The appellant argued that the patent in suit did not disclose, in a manner sufficiently clear and complete, how to obtain the claimed antimicrobial composite, in which the antimicrobial metal in elemental form was present in an amount of from 10 mg/m**(2) to 600 mg/m**(2) of composite. It further argued that this feature was not clear.


Claim 11 as granted already required a (different) specific amount of antimicrobial metal in elemental form per surface of composite. Thus, any lack of clarity which could derive from that relative amount was already present in the claims as granted, and cannot be examined in these opposition appeal proceedings (G 3/14).


Article 100(b) EPC was not invoked by the appellant in its notice of opposition. Such a fresh ground could only be examined during these appeal proceedings with the consent of the respondent (G 10/91), which had not been given.


For those reasons, these objections are not admissible.

T 0089/13 - Sufficiency of parameter

Key points

• A straightforward case wherein the Board set aside a decision revoking the patent because a parameter if the claim was not precisely defined, because the argument "boils down to the argument that the boundaries of the claims [] are not clearly defined". This is a matter of clarity only.
• " The argument that the choice of the exact methodologies used for determining the content of ethylene content [...] and therefore its absence [...]  have an influence on the measurement of the content of ethylene [...] , meaning that a specific methodology applied on a specific sample might show t[...]  a content of ethylene within the claimed range, while a different methodology applied on the same sample might not, boils down to the argument that the boundaries of the claims defining the propylene/ethylene copolymers and the process for their preparation are not clearly defined. This, however, is a matter of clarity of the claimed subject-matter, not sufficiency of disclosure, as it was not shown, let alone argued, that knowledge of the exact methods to determine [...]  the content of ethylene in the range of 4.5 to 7% wt would be essential to meet the additional requirements defined in the claims. Such an objection under Article 84 EPC cannot be successful in the present case as it would not arise out of any amendment made in opposition or appeal proceedings."

T 0089/13 - link


Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The appeal by the patent proprietor (appellant) lies from the decision of the Opposition Division posted on 14 November 2012 according to which European patent No. 1 879 931 was revoked.

II. The European patent was granted on the basis of 10 claims, independent claims 1 and 9 of which read as follows:

"1. Propylene/ethylene copolymers characterized by

- Ethylene content in the range of 4.5-7%wt;

- Mw/Mn (via GPC) in the range 3.5-5.5;

- Mz/Mw (via GPC) lower than 4;

- absence of 2-1 regioinversion, and

- Melting Temperature (Tm) (non-nucleated grade) lower than 143°C.