T 0888/17 - Second appeal, two oral proceedings

Key points

• In case T 2614/11 notified 03.03.2015, the Board had remitted the case to the OD to decide on the adaption of the description to the claims found allowable by the Board. By decision of 02.02.2017, the OD took a decision. The opponent appealed. The BoA held oral proceedings on 28.06.2018 (09:00 - 09:45); the patentee did not attend these. The patent raised new objections against the amended description pages filed on 17.05.2018. The BoA decided to continue the proceedings in writing. The BoA issued on 17.07.2018 summons for second oral proceedings as well as a  Communication, the patentee filed an amended page 2 on 14.08.2018. The opponent requested a correction of the minutes of the oral proceedings by letter of 03.09.2018. The second oral proceedings took place on 05.11.2018 (from 13:00 to 14:15), the patentee did not attend these. 

EPO T 0888/17 -  link

III. By the decision T 2614/11, the case was remitted to the department of first instance with the order to maintain the patent on the basis of the third auxiliary request as submitted with the letter of 9 October 2014 and a description to be adapted thereto.
[...]
IV. The appeal by the opponent lies from the decision of the opposition division that the adapted description met the requirements of Article 84 EPC and that the amended patent on the basis of auxiliary request 3 met the requirements of the EPC.

VI. The opponent (hereinafter the appellant) filed an appeal against said decision. [...]

T 0104/15 - The Board can properly judge technical content

Key points

• In this examination appeal, the Board cites a new document D8. The applicant requests immediate remittal so that D8 can be discussed in two instances. The Board does not grant the remittal.
• D8 originates from the applicant is cited by the Board in reply to fresh arguments of the applicant. Furthermore, in examination appeal, the Boards are restricted neither to an examination of the grounds for the contested decision nor to the facts and evidence on which the decision was based (G10/93). 
• " Thirdly, the board, comprising technically qualified members, is in a position to properly judge the technical content of the present claims and the newly introduced prior-art document, and to deal with the merits of the present case without remittal" 

EPO T 0104/15 -  link

2. PRINCIPAL REQUEST

2.1 The appellant requested that the case be remitted to the examining division for further prosecution in the light of newly introduced document D8. The appellant argued that citing a document for the first time at this late stage of the proceedings effectively meant that prosecution of the application had to be condensed down to one round of written communication during which the opportunities for amendment and for filing new requests were limited. Thus, immediate remittal was consistent with the principles of G 9/91 (OJ EPO 1993, 408).

T 0839/14 - Remittal in 10th year opposition procedure

Key points

• Notice of opposition was filed in 2008, so the procedure is taking 10 years by now. The Board remits the case back to the OD.
• The Board finds the Main Request to be sufficiently disclosed and to be novel over E13 (I understand unlike the OD, which had allowed the 1st AR).
• " The opposition division has neither considered novelty with respect to the other documents brought forward against it, nor did it examine and decide on the ground of inventive step in the light of further citations. At appeal stage neither the Appellant-Opponent nor the Appellant-Proprietor have submitted any argument in relation to these issues. Therefore, as was confirmed at the oral proceedings before the Board, neither the parties nor the Board were in a position to conduct a meaningful discussion of these remaining issues. Indeed at the oral proceedings both parties for this very reason requested remittal."

EPO T 0839/14 - link

5.5 Since E13 does not directly and unambiguously disclose a high resolution linear actuator moving the piston, the Board can but conclude that the subject-matter of claim 1 [of the Main Request, PJL] is novel with respect to this prior art according to Art. 54(2) EPC.

6. Remittal

6.1 The Board has considered the exercise of the first instance discretionary power not to admit the fresh ground under Art 100c), and has further considered opposition grounds based on Art l00(b) and Art 100a) in relation with Art 54(1) EPC in respect of E13 and has reached the conclusion its subject-matter contained novel features with respect to this disclosure.

T 1167/13 - Fact or argument

Key points

• The Board does not admit a new objection of the opponent submitted with the Statement of grounds.
• " The board has come to the conclusion that the objection has been raised for the first time in the statement of grounds of appeal and represents an alleged new fact within the meaning of Article 114(2) EPC and Article 12(4) RPBA rather than an argument of the sort that can be presented at any time during the proceedings." 
• This remark is (likely) a follow-up to T1914/12 (proposing that new arguments can not be held inadmissible under Art. 114 EPC) by analysing the matter in line with T 392/16 (labelling a new attack a new fact rather than an argument). 
• The Board's phrase "an argument of the sort that can be presented at any time" suggest that there also arguments that cannot be presented at any time. Perhaps it could have been said that the objection at issue was not an "attack of the sort that can be presented as argument at any time during the proceedings", if the reasonng of T1914/12 that arguments are always admissible.

EPO   1167/13 -  link

3. Admission of a new objection into the appeal proceedings (Articles 114(2) EPC and 12(4) RPBA)

3.1 In the statement of grounds of appeal, the appellants raised the objection under Articles 100(b) and 83 EPC that the person skilled in the art could not carry out the invention over the whole range claimed, because the circuit described in the patent in suit was only suitable for detecting serial, not parallel, arc faults, which was however not reflected in claim 1. The respondent considered this to be a new objection which was raised for the first time in the statement of grounds of appeal and therefore should not be admitted into the appeal proceedings.

3.2 The board has come to the conclusion that the objection has been raised for the first time in the statement of grounds of appeal and represents an alleged new fact within the meaning of Article 114(2) EPC and Article 12(4) RPBA rather than an argument of the sort that can be presented at any time during the proceedings. In the first instance proceedings, the appellants raised two objections concerning Article 100(b) EPC. Neither of these objections remotely related to the question of the type of arc fault to be detected, and in particular not to the specific question of whether the invention can be carried out over the whole range claimed. The corresponding objection thus cannot reasonably be considered as a mere argument, which was provided in support of alleged facts that have already been presented. Since the appellants did not contest during the oral proceedings before the board that the new objection is a new alleged fact, the board sees no reason to deviate from the above assessment.

3.3 According to Article 12(4) RPBA the board has the discretionary power to hold inadmissible facts which could have been presented in the first instance proceedings. The board notes that the opposition division stated in its preliminary opinion of 10 December 2012 that the requirements of Article 83 EPC were considered to be fulfilled. The board concludes that the appellants could not have been surprised by the final decision of the opposition division to reject the objection under Article 83 EPC. The further objection under Article 83 EPC could, and should, therefore have been presented already in the first instance proceedings. Furthermore, the questions that were raised by the new objection are not in any way related to the other objections raised in the first instance proceedings in the context of Article 100(b) EPC, and admitting them into the appeal proceedings would have required a fresh discussion of points that had not been at issue before the opposition division.

3.4 Moreover, the board is not convinced by the appellants' argument that the objection at issue was in fact presented during the oral proceedings before the opposition division, since this allegation was neither confirmed by the respondent nor is it reflected in the minutes. The board is also not aware of any request of the appellants for correction of the minutes.

3.5 Thus, the board exercised their discretion under Article 12(4) RPBA to not admit the new objection into the appeal proceedings.

3.6 The board therefore concludes that the patent in suit discloses the invention according to claim 1 in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art, so that the opposition ground under Article 100(b) EPC does not prejudice the maintenance of the patent.

T 1261/13 - Rule 116 and opposition

Key points

• The Board reviews whether the OD was correct in not admitting a request filed by the Rule 116 date for written submissions before the OD. 
• Post first published on 19.02.2019 by mistake;  now republished. 
• The OD had during the oral proceedings announced a negative conclusion on the main request and AR1 and AR2 and then had given the patentee a 'last chance' to file a further AR, even thouhg AR3 to 6 were pending. The patentee filed AR3-new, which was not admitted.
• " Regel 116 EPÜ dient nach ihrem Sinn und Zweck auch dazu, allen Beteiligten sowie der Abteilung genügend Zeit für eine sorgfältige Vorbereitung der mündlichen Verhandlung einzuräumen, []. In der Regel sind somit Anträge, die vor dem Ablauf der Frist nach Regel 116 EPÜ eingereicht werden und Regel 80 erfüllen, zuzulassen, [...]. Das gilt auch für Anträge, in denen Anspruchsmerkmale aus der Beschreibung aufgenommen worden sind. Die Frist nach Regel 116 gewährt den Einsprechenden die Möglichkeit, angemessen, z.B. durch Nachrecherche, zu reagieren." 
• As a comment, the Board decides that any new requests filed by the Rule 116 date are as a rule timely filed, even if the requests involve feature taken from the description. AppApparentlye Rule 79(1) period of four months for filing a response does not entail any obligation to file AR's in view of attacks already in the Notice of opposition and the patentee can simply wait for the Rule 116 time limit. The EPO then notifies the opponent of the new requests, leaving the opponent a few days to carry out a prior art search for the features taken from the description. And gives the opponent the task to submit present the found prior art during the oral proceedings. At least that is how I understand the Board's analysis of the meaning of Rule 116 in opposition proceedings. Note that the Board does not indicate that the OD had raised new objections of own motion in the Rule 116 communication. Note that the Board also does not say that the plain text of Rule 116 prescribes that the requests must be admitted.
• The Board is also very critical of giving the patentee "one last chance" during the oral proceedings.
• " Dass die Abteilung nach Diskussion des Hilfsantrags II der Patentinhaberin eine letzte Gelegenheit oder Chance gewährt hat [...], ohne über die Zulässigkeit der noch geltenden Hilfsanträgen III(alt) bis VI zu befinden, hat keine Rechtsgrundlage und scheint auf reiner Willkür zu basieren. Wenngleich die Behandlung dieser Anträge, und sei es nur auf ihre Zulässigkeit in das Verfahren hin, möglicherweise eine Vertagung der Vertagung der Verhandlung erforderlich gemacht hätte, bleibt für die Kammer unerfindlich, woher die Einspruchsabteilung die Befugnis herzunehmen glaubte, gleichsam nach Gutsherrenart zu verfügen, dass als "letzte Chance" nur noch ein Antragssatz behandelt werde, gleich wie viele sich noch im Verfahren befanden. Durch dieses willkürlich und rechtlich nicht gestützte Vorgehen wurde der Patentinhaberin ihr Recht auf Gehör verwehrt. " 
• 
  

EPO T 1261/13 -  link

Entscheidungsgründe

1. Die Beschwerde ist zulässig. Die Zulässigkeit der Beschwerde wurde von den Parteien nicht mehr bestritten. Da sie form- und fristgerecht eingereicht wurde, sieht auch die Kammer keinen Grund, die Zulässigkeit in Frage zu stellen.

2. Die vorliegende Erfindung betrifft eine Verstelleinrichtung für das Rotorblatt (Pitchwinkelverstelleinrichtung) einer Windenergieanlage. Zwecke der Erfindung sind die Erhöhung von Zuverlässigkeit sowie die Reduzierung der Motorabmessung der Verstelleinrichtung. Zu diesem Zweck umfasst die Verstelleinrichtung wenigstens zwei Antriebe, die ihre Kraft zum Verstellen des Rotorblattes an verschiedenen Stellen in die Blattwurzel einleiten. Durch einen gleichzeitigen Betrieb aller Antriebe muss jeder nur einen Bruchteil der erforderlichen Gesamtkraft aufbringen. Somit kann die entsprechende Dimensionierung des Motors kleiner ausfallen, siehe Patentschrift Absätze [0005]-[0008].

G 2/19 - Referral T 0831/17 - Haar and the EPC

Key points

• The Board refers to the Enlarged Board essentially the question if holding oral proceedings in Haar is conformity with the EPC.
• The Board is of the opinion that deciding on the location of the oral proceedings is in the competence of the Boards (and divisions), thereby disagreeing with T1142/12 where this was held to belong to "the management of the Office". The Board agrees that even if the location is a matter to be decided by the President, such decision needs to comply with the EPC and is a preliminary question for the compliance with Art. 116 EPC.
• The Board then raises the question if the President (or AC) is competent to locate the organs of the Office outside the locations mentioned in Art.6(2) EPC (and, for Berlin, the Protocol on Centralisation), or if "Munich" in Art.6(2) EPC needs to be interpreted as encompassing Haar.
• This leads to the third question of the referral.
• The first and second question are preliminary matters which follow from the exceptional procedure leading to the appeal: it is an appeal of a third party (not the applicant) against a grant decision on the ground of lack of clarity. The appellant is a professional representative, the Statement of ground mentions "unserer Mandantin, der Vodafone GmbH". The appellant asserts that the appellant is the patent attorney firm (letter)
• The first question is if the right to oral proceedings is restricted if the appeal is clearly inadmissible.
• The second question asks, if the answer to question 1 is yes (there are restrictions), essentially whether the appeal is inadmissible.
• A second appeal against the decision to grant (in 2017)was recently filed by the same patent attorney firm. According to the letter, the appeal is in time because the decision to grant was never notified to the third party. In addition references are made to the German constitution.

Questions referred


3. Wenn die Antwort auf eine der ersten beiden Fragen nein ist, kann die Kammer ohne Verletzung von Artikel 116 EPÜ die mündliche Verhandlung in Haar durchführen, wenn die Beschwerdeführerin diesen Standort als nicht EPÜ-konform gerügt und eine Verlegung der Verhandlung nach München beantragt hat?


3. (translation) [...] May the Board hold oral proceedings in Munich without violating Article 116 EPC, if the appellant considers this place to be not in conformity with the EPC and has requested a relocation of the oral proceedings to Munich?


Further questions referred
1. Ist im Beschwerdeverfahren das Recht auf Durchführung einer mündlichen Verhandlung gemäß Artikel 116 EPÜ eingeschränkt, wenn die Beschwerde auf den ersten Blick unzulässig ist?
2. Wenn die Antwort auf Frage 1 ja ist, ist eine Beschwerde gegen den Patenterteilungsbeschluss in diesem Sinne auf den ersten Blick unzulässig, die ein Dritter im Sinne von Artikel 115 EPÜ eingelegt und damit gerechtfertigt hat, dass im Rahmen des EPÜ kein alternativer Rechtsbehelf gegen eine Entscheidung der Prüfungsabteilung gegeben ist, seine Einwendungen betreffend die angebliche Verletzung von Artikel 84 EPÜ nicht zu berücksichtigen?


EPO G 2/19 G0002/19 - G 0002/19- T 0831/17 - link

Sachverhalt und Anträge

I. Die Beschwerdeführerin, die nicht am Prüfungsverfahren beteiligt war, dort aber verschiedene Einwendungen Dritter eingereicht hatte, wendet sich mit der vorliegenden Beschwerde gegen die Entscheidung der Prüfungsabteilung vom 12. Januar 2017 betreffend die Erteilung des Europäischen Patents Nr. 2 378 735 gemäß Art. 97 (1) EPÜ.

II. Sie rügt die Nichtbeachtung der von ihr erhobenen Klarheitseinwände gegen die erteilten Patentansprüche und vertritt die Auffassung, ihr müsse ein Beschwerderecht gegen den Erteilungsbeschluss zustehen, da wegen der beschränkten Anzahl von Einspruchsgründen andernfalls kein Rechtsschutz gegen die Nichtbeachtung ihrer Einwände nach Art. 84 EPÜ bestehe.

T 2383/15 - Correct minor issues before OD

Key points

• In this opposition appeal, the Board does not admit AR4. AR4 corresponds to AR4 before the OD with a further amendment.
• " The amendment was made in order to overcome the objection of lack of clarity" as maintained by the OD. Hence, the OD had rejected AR4 as being unclear.
• " The [patentee] argued that the objection of lack of clarity against auxiliary request 4 defended during the opposition proceedings was first submitted at the oral proceedings before the opposition division, so that they could only overcome the objection after having contacted the client. However, it is evident, in the Board's view, that the wording of the claims defended in opposition was unclear and the amendment proposed now is self-evident as well, [...]. Therefore, the appellant's argument is rejected." 
• " It is further noted that the argumentation of the appellant in respect of inventive step contemplated in respect of auxiliary request 4 is directed to an issue which was not dealt with in the contested decision (nature of the iron cation), in respect of any of the then pending requests. Therefore, admitting auxiliary request 4 into the proceedings may have required that the case be remitted to the first instance for further prosecution, which could have been avoided if operative auxiliary request 4 had been filed in the first instance proceedings. It was indeed the deliberate choice of the appellant which prevented the opposition division from deciding on inventive step on a properly formulated request."
• I think I can see what the patentee was trying to do here, and on the face of it, it sounds plausible that minor issues can be corrected in appeal. I think it is good that the Board calls out this tactic (though of course, I don't know for sure the patentee's strategy).

EPO T 2383/15 - link

Auxiliary requests 4 and 5

4. Admittance

4.1 The respondent requested that auxiliary requests 4 and 5 be not admitted into the proceedings pursuant to Article 12(4) RPBA.

4.2 Operative auxiliary request 4 is based on auxiliary request 4 dealt with in the contested decision, whereby the feature related to the iron content was amended in order to indicate that it is directed to trivalent iron. The appellant argued that said amendment was based on page 26, lines 18-20 of the application as filed.

4.2.1 The amendment was made in order to overcome the objection of lack of clarity of that feature retained by the opposition division (section 10 of the contested decision). However, the amendment made in operative auxiliary request 4 is based on the passage of the description of the application as filed corresponding to the support already relied upon by the appellant during the opposition proceedings (see section 10.6 of the minutes of the oral proceedings before the opposition division: paragraph 55 of the patent in suit corresponds to page 26, lines 6-21 of the application as filed). Therefore, should the appellant have desired to defend claims corresponding to operative auxiliary request 4, he could, and actually he should, have done so during the oral proceedings before the opposition division. In the present case, there is no evidence on file justifying such a late filing of auxiliary request 4.