T 1362/15 - US style claims and basis

Key points

• This appeal is about Art. 123(2). “Claim 10 of [auxiliary request 2 has a feature X] . This feature was defined in the originally filed claim 14 which depended directly from independent claim 13 and was not linked to any other claim depending from independent claim 13, such as claims 15 and 17, which the appellant also provided as a basis for the subject-matter of claim 10.”
• The appellant requested a referral to the Enlarged Board, asking essentially the question “ if the features of a plurality of dependent claims are incorporated into an independent claim in a situation in which the application as originally filed includes a claims set with a "U.S. style" dependency” (i.e. no multiple dependent claims). 
• The Board does not refer the question. “Regarding the "U.S. style" claim dependency, the Board notes that there is no actual limitation regarding the possible combinations of features in the claims of a U.S. application. 35 U.S.C 112 allows multiple dependent claims to be drafted and states only that a multiple dependent claim shall not serve as a basis for any other multiple dependent claim. Contrary to the argument of the appellant, this is however not an absolute prohibition or even an insurmountable limitation, as it could be overcome, merely for example, by the use of several independent claims in the same category and/or by redrafting of the dependent claims accordingly.”
• “The Board is not persuaded by this argument and finds that the criteria stated in point 3.2 are the necessary and sufficient criteria to assess the requirement of Article 123(2) EPC. The claimed subject-matter, i.e. the claimed combination of features, must be clearly and unambiguously derivable from the whole content of the application as originally filed. If the combination of originally filed claims alone does not fulfill this criteria, it must be established whether this combination of features is derivable from any other part of the application as filed. This criteria is valid, irrespective of the particular dependency structure of the originally filed claims.”

EPO T 1362/15 -  link

The questions which the appellant requested be referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal read:

"1) Does it comply with Art. 123(2) EPC if the features of a plurality of dependent claims are incorporated into an independent claim in a situation in which the application as originally filed includes a claims set with a "U.S. style" dependency (with the relevant dependent claims referring back to the independent claim separately), and includes an embodiment in which the features of the independent claim and the dependent claims are shown in combination?

2) If the answer to question 1) is "yes", may the fact that the embodiment possibly shows additional features, result in a violation of Art. 123(2) because of an intermediate generalization despite the fact that the features added to the independent claim are disclosed separately in the U.S. style claims set?"

Reasons for the Decision

3. Request for referral of two questions to the Enlarged Board of Appeal

3.1 The appellant requested the referral of two questions to the Enlarged Board of Appeal under Article 112(1)(a) EPC (see point VIII. above)

T 0815/18 - Claim amendments changing CPA inadmissible

Key points

• In this examination appeal, the Board concludes that the Main Request is not inventive in view of  D2. The applicant then files a new Main Request at the end of the oral proceedings. The Board does not admit this request.
• " The appellant further argued that, because of [the] amendments, D2 did not represent the closest prior art anymore since it did not relate to microwave radio transmissions but to mobile communications." 
• “The board holds that, even if this technical argument were accepted, amendments to a claim aiming to change the closest prior art, considered as such during the whole examination proceedings, introduces subject-matter which has not been discussed so far and or probably even searched and could not be dealt with without the adjournment of oral proceedings.” 
• As a comment, in this case, the features were taken from the description, so in a way it introduced new subject-matter which have not been discussed so far. That may be enough for holding inadmissible amended claims filed at the end of the oral proceedings. Nevertheless, I tend to agree that the fact that the claim amendments aim to switch the closest prior art document, may provide an additional reason for holding requests inadmissible (also if filed earlier in the procedure). 
• This decision also illustrates that the CPA is to be determined for the claim(s) at issue, not for the patent application as a whole. 

EPO T 0815/18 -  link

Reasons for the Decision

1. The appeal is admissible (see point II above).

2. Main request - Admissibility

2.1 This request was filed late by the appellant at the end of the oral proceedings before the board, after the other requests had been examined, and replaced the previous main request which was thus withdrawn.

2.2 In the oral proceedings, the board had previously expressed the opinion that claim 1 of the previous main request did not meet the requirements of Article 56 EPC in view of D2. During discussion of the previous main request, the board held that D2 discloses the following

[...]

For these reasons, during oral proceedings the board concluded that the subject-matter of claim 1 of the previous main request did not involve an inventive step, in view of D2.

2.3 Claim 1 of the main request differs in substance from claim 1 of the previous main request in that the line interface is a baseband wireline interface and the radio transmission is a microwave radio transmission, i.e. that the radio channels operate in the microwave range.

The appellant argued that these amendments were supported by the description in page 1, line 21 and from page 1, line 24 to page 2, line 6, respectively. The board notes, however, that these passages belong to the part entitled "Background of the invention" and that the terms "microwave" and "baseband" do not appear further in the description, so the board is not convinced that the requirements of Article 123(2) EPC are fulfilled.

The appellant further argued that, because of these amendments, D2 did not represent the closest prior art anymore since it did not relate to microwave radio transmissions but to mobile communications. The board holds that, even if this technical argument were accepted, amendments to a claim aiming to change the closest prior art, considered as such during the whole examination proceedings, introduces subject-matter which has not been discussed so far and or probably even searched and could not be dealt with without the adjournment of oral proceedings.

For these reasons, during the oral proceedings the board decided not to admit the main request into the proceedings (Article 13(3) RPBA).

T 2893/18 - File inspection exclusion appeal

Key points

• This is an unuasal appeal about a request to exclude documents from the public part of the file.
• " By letter dated 18 December 2017, the patent proprietor indicated that it had been informed that opponent 2 intended to make written submissions in preparation for the oral proceedings." The patentee then requests that the letter of the opponent is excluded from the public file and that the letter is not sent to the other opponent.
• First oral proceedings before the OD then take place. The OD decides to admit the documents at issue in the proceedings. The OD then concludes that second oral proceedings are to be held.
• " The present appeal was filed by the patent proprietor following a communication annexed to the summons [issued 31.08.2018] to second oral proceedings in opposition proceedings." 
• The question is whether this appeal is admissible, in particular, whether there is a decision. 
• The Board: " although an implicit decision is not acknowledged as such in the Convention, its possible existence cannot be excluded either because there are circumstances where a decision can be inferred from the context rather than based on the form of a document" 
• " The appellant argued [] that the contested documents were not only listed in this communication but were also commented upon. Therefore, their content was - at least indirectly - made available to any third party reading the communication." 
• " Although the board acknowledges the logic supporting this argument, it can nonetheless not draw the same conclusion as the appellant." 
• " There is no mention at all of the request for their exclusion from file inspection, let alone a decision rejecting such a request. Indeed, the communication appears to only contain the opposition division's provisional opinion on the therein identified outstanding issues and does not seem to even hint at a decision on any issue. Moreover, the contested documents are still in the non-public part of the file." 
• " Thus, the present appeal was filed in the absence of a decision and therefore has to be rejected as inadmissible" 
• " The fact that the documents were communicated to the other opponents is not in contradiction with their provisional exclusion from public inspection." 
•  The other opponent is party to the appeal proceedings. " Regarding the appeal, as foreseen in Article 107, second sentence, EPC "any other parties to the proceedings shall be parties to the appeal proceedings as of right". The provision contains no exception and allows no different interpretation, nor could the appellant's arguments shed a different light or lead to a different understanding. Thus, the opponents are parties to the present proceedings."

T 2893/18 - link

Reasons for the Decision

Party status of opponents 1 and 3

1. The appellant argued, in its submissions of 3 July 2019, that the issues to be considered in the present appeal warrant the participation of only opponent 2 in the proceedings and the exclusion of the other two opponents. The appellant reasoned that opponents 1 and 3 should not have party status since the appeal was not concerned with the opposition itself but with the incidental issue of the exclusion from file inspection of documents submitted by opponent 2 and the correct procedure to be applied when deciding it. They should even have been excluded from participation in the discussion of this issue during the opposition proceedings to safeguard that the contested documents remained unavailable to the public.

2. As the opposition division correctly pointed out in its communication dated 22 December 2017, all documents submitted in the course of opposition proceedings and all exchanges between one party and the opposition division have to be communicated to all parties due to the inter partes nature of opposition proceedings (see also 5.2 below).

Regarding the appeal, as foreseen in Article 107, second sentence, EPC "any other parties to the proceedings shall be parties to the appeal proceedings as of right". The provision contains no exception and allows no different interpretation, nor could the appellant's arguments shed a different light or lead to a different understanding. Thus, the opponents are parties to the present proceedings.

Admissibility of the appeal

3. The appellant's case rests on the argument that the opposition division's communication dated 31 August 2018 contains the implicit decision to reject its request for the exclusion of documents D18-D37 from public file inspection.

T 1364/12 - The positive side of Rule 79(1)

Key points

• In this older decision (2015), the Board explains that documents submitted by the proprietor in the Rule 79 period are admissible. It does  not matter if the documents are prima facie relevant or not. 
• The Board: “da [these documents] von der [patentee] fristgerecht in Antwort auf die Mitteilung nach Regel 79 (1) EPÜ eingereicht worden waren und somit Basis des Einspruchsverfahrens bilden hätten müssen. Die Einspruchsabteilung hätte sich die Frage, ob sie die Dokumente im Rahmen einer Ermessensausübung unter dem Aspekt der Prima-facie-Relevanz zum Verfahren zulässt [], nicht stellen dürfen”

T 1364/12 -  link

5. Berücksichtigung der E8 und E9 im Verfahren

5.1 Die Beschwerdeführerin hat die E8 und E9 mit ihrer ersten Stellungnahme zum Einspruch vom 2. März 2011 und mithin innerhalb der in der Mitteilung nach Regel 79 (1) EPÜ vom 11. November 2010 gesetzten Frist von vier Monaten eingereicht. Demnach war das Vorlegen dieser Druckschriften fristgerecht und zum frühest-möglichen Zeitpunkt im Einspruchsverfahren erfolgt.

5.2 Im Beschwerdeverfahren hat die Beschwerdeführerin in ihrer Beschwerdebegründung die E8 und E9 für die Interpretation des in der E3 verwendeten Begriffs "Sanitärapparat" herangezogen. Als Bestandteil der Beschwerdebegründung waren diese beiden Dokumente und das zugehörige Vorbringen somit von Anfang an Grundlage des Beschwerdeverfahrens (vgl. Artikel 12 (2) VOBK), und die Kammer sieht auch keinerlei Gründe, weshalb sie diese Dokumente und das Vorbringen nach Artikel 12 (4) VOBK nicht berücksichtigen sollte.

5.3 Zwar waren die Dokumente von der Einspruchsabteilung nicht zugelassen worden, allerdings war dies nach Ansicht der Kammer zu Unrecht erfolgt, da sie von der Beschwerdeführerin fristgerecht in Antwort auf die Mitteilung nach Regel 79 (1) EPÜ eingereicht worden waren und somit Basis des Einspruchsverfahrens bilden hätten müssen. Die Einspruchsabteilung hätte sich die Frage, ob sie die Dokumente im Rahmen einer Ermessensausübung unter dem Aspekt der Prima-facie-Relevanz zum Verfahren zulässt (vgl. Entscheidung der Einspruchsabteilung, Entscheidungsgründe Nr 2), nicht stellen dürfen, und es lag insoweit eine fehlerhafte Ermessensausübung vor.

5.4 Die Kammer kam also zur Schlussfolgerung, dass die Dokumente E8 und E9 und der diesbezügliche Vortrag gemäß Artikel 12 (2), (4) VOBK im Verfahren zu berücksichtigen sind. Auf ihre Prima-facie-Relevanz braucht nicht eingegangen zu werden.

T 0603/14 - Novelty attack to inventive step attack

Key points

• In this opposition appeal, the opponent had used D1 and D3 up to the oral proceedings before the Board only to support objections of lack of novelty of claim 1 and claim 25. During the oral proceedings, the Board concludes that the claims are novel and the opponent raises an objection of lack of inventive step based on the same documents. 
• The Board does not admit the new attack.  "At least the allegation that [these documents] led, in combination, to a lack of inventive step is to the Board a new fact." 
• As a comment, the particular approach of calling attacks 'facts'  is due to T1914/12.
• The Board: " the [opponent] did not give any reason for presenting that attack only towards the end of the oral proceedings rather than at such a time before the oral proceedings as to allow the Board and the respondent to appropriately address it. The annex to the summons stated clearly that any further comments, documents or requests should be at the disposal of the Board and the other party one month before the oral proceedings at the latest and should not surprise the other party and the Board. The [patentee] indicated that he would need an appropriate amount of time to react to the objection. Admittance of the objection at this late stage would therefore not have respected the required procedural efficiency. Rather it might even have borne the risk of having to adjourn the oral proceedings." 
• As a comment, "the purpose of the communication of a board of appeal pursuant to Article 15(1) RPBA is to prepare for the oral proceedings and it is not an invitation to the parties to make further submissions or to file further requests" (T0799/17). So the annex to the summons is not an invitation to make further submissions but the deadline given therein is still a deadline.

EPO T 0603/14 -  link

7. Admissibility of a late-filed inventive step objection

7.1 The Board exercised their discretion not to consider the late filed objection of lack of inventive step in view of D1 and D3.

7.2 The appellant raised this objection for the first time in the oral proceedings before the Board. The documents form part of the appeal proceedings.

7.3 The objection represents an amendment to the appellant's case and may as such, pursuant to Article 13(1) RPBA, be admitted and considered at the Board's discretion. Document D1 and D3 had up to that point only been used to support objections of lack of novelty of claim 1 and claim 25. At least the allegation that they led, in combination, to a lack of inventive step is to the Board a new fact.

7.4 The appellant did not present a convincing justification for the late submission of this alleged new fact. The Board's preliminary opinion on the disclosure of D1 did not introduce any new aspects into the discussion. It merely did not follow the appellant's conclusions. Even accepting arguendo that it did prompt the new objection, the appellant did not give any reason for presenting that attack only towards the end of the oral proceedings rather than at such a time before the oral proceedings as to allow the Board and the respondent to appropriately address it. The annex to the summons stated clearly that any further comments, documents or requests should be at the disposal of the Board and the other party one month before the oral proceedings at the latest and should not surprise the other party and the Board. The respondent indicated that he would need an appropriate amount of time to react to the objection. Admittance of the objection at this late stage would therefore not have respected the required procedural efficiency. Rather it might even have borne the risk of having to adjourn the oral proceedings. Even if one accepted that D1, having been cited to support an objection of lack of novelty, could have been expected to be used as a starting point for an objection of lack of inventive step, the other party cannot be expected to anticipate any arbitrary combination of D1 with other documents on file, such as D3, to be introduced into the proceedings. Furthermore, a document useful for assessing novelty is not necessarily a legitimate choice as closest prior art, see also T0181/17, reasons 7.4.

8. For the above reasons, the Board accedes to the respondent's main request and rejects the appellant's request.

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is dismissed.

T 1906/17 - Rule 79(1)

Key points

• The Board considers the main request (claims as granted) to be not novel over D1 and does not admit the new auxiliary requests in this opposition appeal.
• The Board: “Die Kammer stellt fest, dass die [patentee] im Einspruchsverfahren mit der Mitteilung gemäß Regel 79 (1) EPÜ die Möglichkeit bekommen hat, geänderte Unterlagen einzureichen und dass sie diese Möglichkeit nicht genutzt hat, obwohl ihr zu diesem Zeitpunkt die vorläufige Meinung der Einspruchsabteilung nicht bekannt war.”
• The Board notes that the arguments of the opponent concerning the lack of novelty over D1 were the same throughout the opposition and appeal proceedings. 
• The Board: “Die Kammer ist daher der Meinung, dass die Hilfsanträge bereits am Anfang des Einspruchsverfahrens in Reaktion auf die Einspruchsbegründung hätten vorgebracht werden können und müssen. Das Zulassen der Hilfsanträge ins Verfahren liegt dementsprechend im Ermessen der Kammer im Sinne von Artikel 12 (4) VOBK.” (emphasis added).
• The Board furthermore notes that the respondent in opposition appeal, having won before the OD, can not wait until the preliminary opinion of the Board with filing auxiliary requests.
• The Board: “Dass eine Partei bewusst die vorläufige Stellungnahme der Kammer abwartet, bevor sie auf einen im Verfahren, das mit dem Erlass der angefochtenen Entscheidung endete, längst vorgebrachten Einwand der anderen Partei reagiert, widerspricht der eigentlichen auf die Überprüfung der angefochtenen Entscheidung gerichteten Funktion des Beschwerdeverfahrens und dem Prinzip des frühzeitigen und vollständigen Vorbringens der Parteien” 

EPO T 1906/17 - link

3. Zulassung der Hilfsanträge 1 bis 4

3.1 Die Beschwerdegegnerin hat mit Schriftsatz vom 25. Juli 2019 in Reaktion zur Kammermitteilung gemäß Artikel 15 (1) VOBK die Hilfsanträge 1 bis 4 eingereicht, deren Zulassung ins Beschwerdeverfahren die Beschwerdeführerin unter Hinweis auf die Entscheidung T1126/97 wegen Verspätung sowie deswegen widerspricht, weil alle Hilfsanträge Kombinationen von Merkmalen aus den Unteransprüchen und aus der Beschreibung enthielten, die zu weiteren Einwände führten.

3.2 Die seitens der Beschwerdegegnerin zur Rechtfertigung der späten Einreichung der Hilfsanträge vorgetragenen Argumente überzeugen nicht.

Diese beziehen sich im Kern darauf, dass nach Einschätzung der Beschwerdegegnerin die Hilfsanträge deshalb zugelassen werden sollten, um ihr die Möglichkeit zur Verteidigung des Streitpatents zu geben. Im Einspruch habe nämlich keine Veranlassung bestanden, Hilfsanträge einzureichen, und dies wäre aus ökonomischen Gründen auch nicht sinnvoll gewesen, weil mehrere Einwände seitens der Beschwerdeführerin vorgebracht worden wären. Weil die Auffassung der Prüfungsabteilung und der Einspruchsabteilung positiv für die Beschwerdegegnerin gewesen wären, sei nun die Entwicklung im Beschwerdeverfahren für sie unerwartet.

Die Kammer stellt fest, dass die Beschwerdegegnerin im Einspruchsverfahren mit der Mitteilung gemäß Regel 79 (1) EPÜ die Möglichkeit bekommen hat, geänderte Unterlagen einzureichen und dass sie diese Möglichkeit nicht genutzt hat, obwohl ihr zu diesem Zeitpunkt die vorläufige Meinung der Einspruchsabteilung nicht bekannt war.

T 0043/16 - OD should have admitted requests

Key points

• The OD had not admitted Auxiliary Request 1. The Board considers that the OD did so according to the wrong principles (G7/93). Oral proceedings before the OD were held on 13.10.2015. The Board notes that AR-1 was filed with letter of 18.12.2014. This letter was after the expiry of the period of Rule 79(1) EPC (The Rule 79(1) Communication was dated 21.02.2014. A first extension with 2 months was granted, i.e. until 21.08.2014. A second extension was denied. The Patentee's response was filed only in December 2014. 
• The Board: "Auch wenn sie [Auxiliary Request 1] formal nach Ablauf der nach Regel 79 (1) EPÜ gesetzten Frist eingegangen sind, sind sie Gegenstand sowohl der in der Ladung zur mündlichen Verhandlung geäußerten vorläufigen Meinung der Einspruchsabteilung, als auch der Eingabe der Einsprechenden vom 23. Juli 2015. Daher mussten sie als faktisch in das Einspruchsverfahren zugelassen gelten."
• As a first comment, I note that the Board appears to acknowledge that auxiliary requests filed after the expiry of the Rule 79(1) period are in principle late-filed. However, I find it rather weird that a late-filed request becomes admissible because the opponent comments in substance on it. The opponent can hardly be expected to restrict itself to only contesting admissibility, in view of the risk that the OD could admit the request. If I understand the present Board, if you wile a substantive rebuttal as an opponent, patentee's late-filed auxiliary requests automatically become admissible. What is the opponent supposed to do, then? Has the Rule 79(1) period any meaning, except for being a delay until the OD can issue summons?
• The OD had also decided to not admit Auxiliary Requests 3 to 6, filed after the Rule 116(2) date. The Board: Die Kammer stellt fest, dass die Nichtzulassung der Hilfsanträge 3 bis 6 lediglich damit begründet wurde, dass der Antrag nach Regel 116(2) EPÜ verspätet eingereicht worden war. [in particular: “Durch die Eingabe der Einsprechenden vom 23. Juli 2015 habe sich der Sachverhalt geändert, da die Einsprechende neue Einwände, zusätzliche Argumente und weitere Druckschriften eingereicht habe.”] Die Einspruchsabteilung berücksichtigte nicht, dass der Antrag durch eine Änderung des Streitstoffs veranlasst war, [...] . Hinsichtlich der Hilfsanträge 4 bis 6 setzte sie sich inhaltlich nicht erkennbar mit den geänderten Ansprüchen auseinander, bevor sie die Hilfsanträge 3 bis 6 als nicht zulässig verwarf. Die Einspruchsabteilung hat ihr Ermessen daher rein formalistisch ausgeübt.
• As a comment, I tend to agree that if the opponent submits new attacks and documents shortly before the Rule 116(2) date (and these are admitted), then the patentee must be given an opportunity to reply, with auxiliary requests if desired, under Article 113. Rule 116(2) indeed only applies if the proprietor “has been notified” of the grounds prejudicing the maintenance of the patent and invitation to submit amended claims has accordingly been issued. The Rule 116(2) date applies only for amended claims that are responsive to those objections notified in that invitation. 
• The OD had also decided to not admit the new Main Request, filed two weeks before the oral proceedings, which were the claims as granted (with the reply of 18.12.2014, the Main Request was amended claims). According to the Board, two weeks was sufficient for the opponent to consider this new request, because the claims as granted were already the subject of the Notice of opposition. "Somit war der Einsprechenden durchaus zuzumuten, sich etwa zwei Wochen vor dem Termin der mündlichen Verhandlung erneut mit den erteilten Ansprüchen und mit ihrer eigenen Argumentation auseinanderzusetzen, an der sich angesichts der erteilten Ansprüche nichts geändert haben sollte." 

EPO T 0043/16 -  link

Entscheidungsgründe

1. Die Beschwerde ist zulässig.

2. Die Beschwerdeführerin reichte zusammen mit ihrer Beschwerdebegründung erneut ihren Hauptantrag betreffend die erteilten Ansprüche, sowie die Hilfsanträge 1 bis 6 ein, die von der Einspruchsabteilung unter Verweis auf Regel 116 (2) EPÜ in das Einspruchsverfahren nicht zugelassen worden waren.

2.1 Daher hat die Kammer zu überprüfen, ob einzelne oder alle diese Anträge in das Beschwerdeverfahren zuzulassen sind. Gemäß Artikel 12(4) der Verfahrensordnung der Beschwerdekammern (VOBK) kann eine Kammer das Vorbringen eines Beteiligten in das Beschwerdeverfahren zulassen, auch wenn es von der ersten Instanz als verspätet nicht zugelassen wurde. Soweit nach Artikel 12 (4) VOBK im Beschwerdeverfahren über die Zulassung von Vorbringen zu entscheiden ist, das bereits im erstinstanzlichen Verfahren nicht zu gelassen wurde, entspricht dies einer Überprüfung der auf Regel 116 EPÜ gestützten Ermessensentscheidung der Einspruchsabteilung.

2.2 Nach ständiger Rechtsprechung der Beschwerdekammern ist bei der Überprüfung einer Ermessensentscheidung des erstinstanzlichen Organs zu beurteilen, ob es sein Ermessen nach Maßgabe der falschen Kriterien, unter Nichtbeachtung der richtigen Kriterien oder in willkürlicher Weise ausgeübt hat (siehe G 7/93, ABl. EPA 1994, 775, Entscheidungsgründe Punkt 2.6; T 640/91, ABl. EPA 1994, 918, Entscheidungsgründe Punkt 6.3; T 109/08, Entscheidungsgründe Punkt 4.1).

2.3 Daher wird die Kammer im Folgenden untersuchen, ob die Nichtzulassung der erneut im Beschwerdeverfahren vorgelegten Anträge von der Einspruchsabteilung nach Ausübung pflichtgemäßen Ermessens erfolgte, oder ob die Einspruchsabteilung ihr Ermessen fehlerhaft ausgeübt hat.

3. Hauptantrag

3.1 Die Beschwerdeführerin hat mit ihrer ersten Eingabe im Einspruchsverfahren geänderte Ansprüche eingereicht. Erst mit ihrer zweiten Eingabe im Einspruchsverfahren, mit dem Schriftsatz vom 28. September 2015, legte sie als Hauptantrag die erteilten Ansprüche vor, die sie auch im Beschwerdeverfahren als Hauptantrag weiterverfolgt.