T 1045/12 - Equally likely options

Key points

• " The appellant further argued that the solution to the objective technical problem taught by D3 was one of several, equally likely options, the others being  [...]. In the presence of several, equally likely options, the board had to provide a reason why the skilled person would have selected the claimed option. The board is not persuaded by this argument because the fact that there are other options has no bearing on the obviousness of one specific option. Furthermore, if all options are equally likely, then the invention merely results in an obvious and consequently non-inventive selection among a number of known possibilities"
• The Board then refers to " Guidelines for Examination, G VII 3.1 (i), November 2018" However, that paragraph is about common general knowledge and does not seem very relevant.
• The Board gave this decision publication code [C] but did not highlight a particular paragraph. I find the paragraph about 'equally likely options' the most interesting. I am not sure why the Board refers to the Guidelines and not to the Case Law Book (e.g. I.D.9.18.9). 

EPO T 1045/12 -  link

4. Inventive step, Article 56 EPC 1973

4.1 According to the reasons for the appealed decision regarding the then third auxiliary request (the same as the previous version of the claims in these appeal proceedings), the subject-matter of claim 1 differed from the disclosure of D4 in that the controller responded to the user logging out by allowing data processing to finish if the log out took place during said data processing. No technical problem could be derived from the difference feature, as it was merely a security policy. The skilled person would have implemented the policy with "the tools at hand", for instance by applying the teaching of D3, relating to implementing this security policy in UNIX.

T 1280/14 - Irreversibly divergent auxiliary requests

Key points

• In this opposition appeal, the OD had allowed the Patentee's main request. The Board finds the main request not novel, the interesting point is the decision to not admit the auxiliary requests. 
• During the oral proceedings before the OD, 15 AR's of Patentee were pending. The Opponent challenges admissibility of these AR's with the Statement of grounds, the Patentee resubmits the 15AR's with its reply, arranged in six "lines of defence". With the preliminary opinion, the Board doubts admissibility of these request, citing T1903/13 which states that the Boards have the power to not admit divergent auxiliary requests. At the beginning of the oral proceedings, the Patentee gives ups 13 out of the 15 AR's such that only AR 8 and AR 15 remain (corresponding to 'lines of defence' number 3 and 6).
• The Board does not admit these twp request. The Patentee accepted/risked ('nahm damit billigend in Kauf') that the Board (and the Opponent) were unnecessarily preparing for auxiliary requests which were not relevant for the further proceedings. In this way, the Patentee caused the Opponent to incur high preparatory costs that could have been avoided. Hence, the Patentee has not acted in line with the prescribed procedural economy. 

EPO Headnote
Anwendung des Erfordernisses der Achtung der gebotenen Verfah­rens­ökonomie nach Artikel 13(1) VOBK wenn eine Patentinhaberin billigend in Kauf nimmt, dass sich die Beschwerdegegner und die Kammer unnöti­ger­weise auf Hilfsanträge vorbereiteten, auf die es im wei­teren Verfahren nicht ankommen kann, weil die Patent­inhaberin erst in der mündlichen Verhandlung eine Vielzahl von diver­gie­renden Verteidigungslinien, die von einer Hauptverteidigungs­linie abweichen und bereits in der vorläu­figen Stellungnahme der Kammer gerügt wurden, auf einige wenige der divergierenden Verteidigungslinien beschränkt.

EPO T 1280/14 -  link

Entscheidungsgründe

1. Zulässigkeit der Druckschrift D9

1.1 Es liegt gemäß Artikel 12(4) VOBK im Ermessen der Kammer, Beweismittel nicht zuzulassen, die bereits im erstinstanzlichen Verfahren hätten vorgebracht werden können. Unbeschadet dieser Befugnis, wird das gesamte Vorbringen der Beteiligten nach Absatz 1 von der Kammer berücksichtigt, wenn und soweit es sich auf die Be­schwerdesache bezieht und die Erfordernisse nach Absatz 2 erfüllt.

[...]

1.5 Die Druckschrift D9 ist deshalb im Verfahren (Artikel 12(4) VOBK).

2. Hauptantrag

2.4 Der Gegenstand des erteilten Anspruchs 1 (Hauptantrag) ist somit gegenüber dem in der Druckschrift D9 offen­barten Sicherheitsele­ment nicht neu (Artikel 100 a) und 54 EPÜ 1973).

3. Zulässigkeit des Hilfsantrags 1

3.1 Nach Artikel 13(1) VOBK steht es im Ermessen der Kam­mer, Änderungen des Vorbringens eines Beteiligten nach Einreichung seiner Beschwerdebegründung oder Erwiderung zuzulassen und zu berücksichtigen. Bei der Ausübung des Ermessens werden insbesondere die Komplexität des neuen Vorbringens, der Stand des Verfahrens und die gebotene Verfahrensökonomie berücksichtigt.

T 0802/17 - Only one chance to file amended claims?

Key points

• In this opposition appeal, the proprietor submits that the OD had committed a substantial procedural violation by not admitting a request filed during the oral proceedings. The OD had given the patentee the opportunity to file a request during the OP, which the patentee did, the OD had refused the opportunity to file a further request because this would not be "fair". 
• The Board holds that this is not sufficient reasoning for the decision to not admit the request. 
• The Board also holds that procedural economy cannot be a ground for the decision, because the OD had changed its preliminary opinion on Art.123(2) EPC during the oral proceedings to the disadvantage of the patentee. In particular, it was not clear whether the Patentee had to amend all pending request to address the Art. 123(2) EPC issue at once, or whether it was sufficient to do so only for the Main Request when that request was discussed. 
• Therefore, there was a substantial procedural violation and the case is remitted. 

EPO T 0802/17 -  link

Entscheidungsgründe

Zurückverweisung an die Einspruchsabteilung - Art. 11 VOBK

1. Gemäß Artikel 11 VOBK (Verfahrensordnung der Beschwerdekammern) hebt die Kammer die angefochtene Entscheidung auf und verweist die Angelegenheit an die erste Instanz zurück, wenn das Verfahren vor der ersten Instanz wesentliche Mängel aufweist, es sei denn, dass besondere Gründe gegen die Zurückverweisung sprechen.

T 1688/12 - Broadening effect of dependent claims

Key points

• In this opposition appeal, the opponent based an Article 123(2) attack on the argument that by deleting dependent claim 9 and the corresponding paragraph of the description, a more narrow meaning was given to the subject-matter of the independent claims. In particular, claim 9 specified a feature in a rather broad way, thereby making claim 1 broader. By deleting claim 9, claim 1 hence was narrowed. 
• The Board rejects the argument, on the ground that the mere circumstance that a dependent claim encompasses a large number of possible but further specified embodiments, does not mean that all the claims from which depends, are to be interpreted in such a way as to be consistent with all these unspecified embodiments. 

EPO T 1688/12 - link



Sachverhalt und Anträge

- Bezugnehmend auf den von der Einspruchsabteilung als gewährbar erachteten Antrag machte die Einsprechende geltend, dass die Streichung des ursprünglichen Absatzes [0021] (siehe EP 2 099 048 A1) sowie des ursprünglichen Anspruchs 9 gegen Artikel 123 (2) EPÜ verstoße. Aufgrund des Bezugs des ursprünglichen Anspruchs 9 auf den Anspruch 7 dürfe der ursprünglicher Anspruch 7 nur so ausgelegt werden, dass er nicht im Widerspruch zum Anspruch 9 steht. Dem Absatz [0021] sei entnehmbar, was mit dem Merkmal des Anspruchs 9 gemeint sei, wonach "der Kontaktestecker integraler Bestandteil einer elektrischen Steckverbindungen zwischen benachbarten Modulen ist". Die Kontaktestecker, die nach Anspruch 7 an beiden Seiten des Gehäuses des Relaismoduls angeordnet sind, seien nämlich integraler Bestandteil einer Backplane-Verbindung zwischen benachbarten Modulen. Das Merkmal "Gehäuse des Relaismoduls" von Anspruch 7 könne deshalb auch so ausgelegt werden, dass es auch das Gehäuse der Backplane-Verbindung umfasst. Mit der Streichung des Absatzes [0021] sowie des ursprünglichen Anspruchs 9 sei versucht worden, diese breitere Auslegung auszuschließen und darauf einzugrenzen, dass die Kontaktestecker an beiden Seiten des Gehäuses des Relaismoduls selbst angeordnet sind. Diese engere Auslegung sei ursprünglich nicht offenbart worden.

Entscheidungsgründe

4. Hauptantrag der Einsprechenden

4.1 Einwand nach Artikel 123 (2) EPÜ

4.1.1 Der Einwand unter Artikel 123 (2) EPÜ gegen den von der Einspruchsabteilung als gewährbar erachteten Anspruch 1 stützt sich auf das Argument, dass der ursprüngliche Anspruch 9 nur so auszulegen ist, dass die Kontaktestecker integraler Bestandteil einer Backplane-Verbindung zwischen benachbarten Modulen ist, sowie auf die Prämisse, dass der ursprünglicher Anspruch 7 nur so ausgelegt werden darf, dass er nicht in Widerspruch dazu steht. Absatz [0021] des Streitpatents, wird als Grundlage für diese Auslegung genannt. Dieser Absatz lautet wie folgt:

"Bei bekannten Modulreihen besteht häufig bereits eine mechanische und elektrische Verbindung zwischen den einzelnen Modulen durch die typische Realisierung eines so genannten "backplane" mittels Stecker/Buchse zwischen den einzelnen Modulen. Deshalb ist es vorteilhaft, wenn der Kontaktestecker integraler Bestandteil einer solchen elektrischen Steckverbindungen zwischen benachbarten Modulen ist."

T 1868/16 - Plausibility strikes again (Everolimus)

Key points

• In this opposition appeal, the Board gives useful guidance about requests for acceleration of proceedings.
• More importantly, this valuable pharmaceutical patent is revoked essentially for insufficient disclosure of the second medical use due to lack of plausibility.
• " It follows from the above that in the present case it has to be examined whether the suitability of everolismus for the treatment of patients with PNETs has been shown or at least made plausible in the application taking into account the common general knowledge of the person skilled in the art." 
• The Board then analyzes what the patent application discloses.
• " Paragraph [0052] provides nothing more than hypothetical statements indicating the possibility that some effects may be observed. The respondent's argument that the skilled reader would equate the expressions "may be observed" and "may be performed" with "had been observed" and "had been performed" and that the wording in paragraph [0052] was merely the inconsequential stylistic preference of the person drafting the application is not accepted." 
• " The mere statement that chromogranin A reduction may be observed is not an indication that a clinical trial was on-going or that certain effects had actually been achieved. Moreover, in the absence of any information as to whether patients with PNETs have been treated or whether chromogranin A reduction actually correlates with tumour response in these patients, the mere statement that chromogranin A reduction may be observed is not sufficient to demonstrate the suitability of everolismus in the treatment of PNETs." 
• " Paragraph [0053] of the patent in suit consists of a single sentence and states that "also synergistic effects of such combination are obtained" (i.e. the combination referred to in the preceding paragraph). Again this is a mere statement which is not supported by any factual evidence. " 
• " It is the board's conviction that in these circumstances, where there existed no established relationship between mTOR inhibition and the treatment of PNETs, it was imperative to provide at least some technical evidence in the application as filed that allowed the skilled person to conclude that everolismus was suitable for the treatment of PNETs. A mere reference to the (desired) reduction of a biomarker that may be observed or a response evaluation that may be performed is not sufficient in this context." 
• " The [patentee's] argument that it had been aware of intermediate results showing the suitability of everolismus in the treatment of PNETs, as the trial study reported in [D56] had already been on-going for several months before the earliest priority date, is not accepted. For sufficiency of disclosure, it is not relevant what the respondent was aware of, but decided not to disclose. " 
• " Moreover, according to the [patentee's] own admission, the paragraphs on which it relied describe trials which had not yet been carried out and had not yet delivered any results. Indeed, the recruitment for a study of everolismus in monotherapy started well after the earliest priority date and the filing date of the patent in suit and results were apparently not available until several years later []. In the board's judgement, it is not justified to rely on knowledge which was acquired only after the relevant date to be used as a remedy for insufficiency of disclosure." 
Update 02.01.2018: the INN is "Everolimus" but the Board uses "everolismus". I've changed the title of this blog post to recite the INN.

EPO T 1868/16 -  link

Reasons for the Decision

3. Accelerated processing

3.1 As a preliminary remark which, however, is not relevant for the present decision, the board would like to note that it regards acceleration of the appeal proceedings as well as postponement of oral proceedings to be matters pertaining to the conduct of the appeal proceedings which lies within the sole competence of the board. It might therefore be questioned whether the grant or refusal of a request for acceleration or postponement is at all a decision within the meaning of Article 111 EPC for which the board has to give its reasons pursuant to Rule 102 g) EPC. Nevertheless, in the present case, the board agreed to respond to the respondent's request for being given the board's reasons on acceleration.

T 2506/13 - Decision state of the file, procedural violation

Key points

• Another decision according to the state of the file, another procedural violation for lack of proper reasoning.
• The Board: "It is therefore not derivable from the impugned decision, which features of the independent claims according to, in total, four different pending requests, the examining division considered to be disclosed in combination in the prior art and which they regarded as distinguishing features."
• "The board, and in fact any objective reader, is therefore not able to understand how the examining division arrived at their objective technical problem formulation "to adapt the general knowledge to a particular situation" without guess work. It is also not objectively determinable how the examining division arrived at their assessment of the solution."

T 2506/13 -  link

Reasons for the Decision

1. The appeal is admissible

2. Procedural violation

2.1 According to Rule 111(2) EPC, decisions which are open to appeal shall be reasoned.

2.2 In their decision according to the state of the file, the examining division makes reference to the communication of 27 May 2013. In said communication, the examining division argues, based on documents D3 to D10, what, in their own words, the skilled person's general knowledge was. It is not apparent from that communication which combination of features of the claims corresponds to what the examining division identifies to be general knowledge.

2.3 The examining division then goes on to say that

"the subject-matter of the claims differs from the prior art (the general knowledge of the skilled person as set out above) only by simple configuration features. The technical effect and problem solved by these features is to adapt the general knowledge to a particular situation. As adapting this knowledge to a particular situation belongs to the normal endeavours of the skilled person, the recognition of this problem as such does not involve an inventive step.

T 0758/13 - Must restrict to illustrated embodiment

Key points

• In this examination appeal, the Board finds claim 1 to lack support under Article 84 EPC.
"The wording [of the claim feature] is reflected in the description on page 6, lines 22 to 27" 
• "However, in the detailed description of the embodiments, the rendering device consistently receives the first image component and the text component (typically the subtitles) as separate components." The Board then points to Figure 3.
• "Summarising, the wording [of the feature] is partly repeated in the description, but the detailed description of the embodiments does not disclose the text component being an integral part of the first image component. Therefore, the board finds that this repetition of the wording of the claim does not provide support for claim 1 [...]" 
• The Board also notes that according to some other feature of claim 1 "the text component is not an integral part of the first image component" but does not raise a clarity objection, nor explicitly identifies the relevance of this observation for the question of support. 
• The Board refers to CLBA II.A.5.1. The decision indeed seems to be fully in line with that case law.
• As a comment, assuming that the claim is novel and inventive by other features and that the skilled person has no difficulty in carrying out the invention (the Board makes no objection under Article 83)  the application is still refused because there is no drawing or detailed description of the feature. Even though the decision entirely leaves open the possibility that the skilled person would not need such a detailed description to carry out the invention. The feature at issue could even be entirely conventional.  The Board also does not say that the feature is an essential feature. 
• As a further comment, it seems that the in the critical issue "the detailed description of the embodiments does not disclose the text component being an integral part of the first image component" the Board does not use "disclose"  in the sense of Article 123(2) - at least I assume that literally repeating the wording of the claim feature under the caption of "detailed description"  does not help. However, the Board leaves open what is necessary, perhaps because the Board does not identify any technical reason at issue for why the feature is problematic without detailed explanation in the description - at least I don't see such a reason explicitly in the Board's decision. 

EPO T 0758/13 -  link

Reasons for the Decision

1. The appeal is admissible.

2. Support by the description - second, third, fourth and fifth auxiliary requests (Article 84 EPC)

2.1 According to Article 84 EPC, the claims must be supported by the description. It is established case law that this means that the subject-matter of the claim must be taken from the description and it is not admissible to claim something which is not described (see Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office, 8th edition 2016, II.A.5.1).

Purely formal support by the description through repetition of the mention of a claimed feature does not meet the requirements of Article 84 EPC (ibid., at II.A.5.2).

2.2 Claim 1 of each request specifies:

"a text component embedded in the first image component".

The technical meaning of this feature is that the text is an integral part of the first image component.

2.3 The wording quoted in point 2.2 above is reflected in the description on page 6, lines 22 to 27:

"the step of creating a three-dimensional image signal comprises including the text component in the first image component. The text component (for example a subtitle) [...] does not need to be transferred as a separate component. The receiving apparatus that is going to render the 3D image can still control the 3D display parameters in the region of the subtitle, even if that subtitle is embedded in the first image component of the signal".

According to the quoted passage, the rendering device receives the text component and the first image component as one single component.