T 2174/12 - Not: is it essential

T 2174/12

For the decision, click here

Key points

• Board: " As regards compliance of an amendment with Article 123(2) EPC when features are taken from an embodiment in the description and Figures, it is not of relevance whether features not taken-up into the claim are considered essential to the invention or not. Rather the standard to be met is that the subject-matter resulting from the amendment must be directly and unambiguously derivable, using common general knowledge, and seen objectively and relative to the date of filing, from the whole of the application as filed (see e.g. G2/10)." 
• " In the present case, the necessary direct and unambiguous derivability requires that all features structurally or functionally related to the exterior laminate be taken up into the claim."
• The "is it essential" test is usually applied for deleting features from claim 1 as filed (CLB II.E.1.7.2). For extracting a feature from an embodiment, the Guidelines suggest establishing that the feature " is not related or inextricably linked to the other features of that embodiment" (GL H-V 3.2.1). The Board here seems to explain that "not related"  means "not structurally or functionally related". Why the Guidelines also mention the much lower standard of "not inextricably linked"  is not entirely clear to me.

2. Auxiliary request 1

2.1 Non-admittance of request (Article 13(1) RPBA)

[...]

2.1.2 The respondent filed auxiliary request 1 during oral proceedings. The request thus represented a change to the respondent's complete case as defined in Article 12(2) RPBA) and its admittance is to be considered at the Board's discretion under Article 13 RPBA.

2.1.3 As regards prima facie compliance with Article 123(2) EPC, this is not achieved in claim 1.

The exterior laminate has admittedly been defined more clearly through addition of features taken from para. [0010] of the application as filed. However, the features taken-up into claim 1 with respect to the exterior laminate are not disclosed in isolation in the description; para. [0013] provides further details of the laminate at least having two sheets of nonwoven fabric. The exterior laminate is thus structurally disclosed in the description as having 'at least two sheets of nonwoven fabric', such that the omission of this feature from those taken-up into claim 1, to more clearly define the exterior laminate, gives rise at least prima facie to an unallowable intermediate generalisation of the original disclosure in this respect. Although reference was made to paragraph [0062] as a further basis of disclosure, this refers to a nonwoven fabric sheet and a water repellent sheet. Although it might be argued that a water-repellent sheet is an alternative to one of the nonwoven fabrics (and even this is not considered to be unambiguously disclosed) this anyway would not be a disclosure obviating the presence of a nonwoven fabric in the exterior laminate, but one rather confirming it.

As regards compliance of an amendment with Article 123(2) EPC when features are taken from an embodiment in the description and Figures, it is not of relevance whether features not taken-up into the claim are considered essential to the invention or not. Rather the standard to be met is that the subject-matter resulting from the amendment must be directly and unambiguously derivable, using common general knowledge, and seen objectively and relative to the date of filing, from the whole of the application as filed (see e.g. G2/10).

In the present case, the necessary direct and unambiguous derivability requires that all features structurally or functionally related to the exterior laminate be taken up into the claim. 

This thus includes not just those features from lines 1 to 2 of para. [0010] of the A-publication but also at least the detail of the exterior laminate in para. [0013] regarding the laminate comprising two sheets of nonwoven fabric. This detail regarding the exterior laminate having at least two sheets of nonwoven fabric is clearly structurally related to the structure of the exterior laminate disclosed in that embodiment and so, at least prima facie, needs to be included in the claim for its subject-matter to meet the requirement of Article 123(2) EPC. This feature of the exterior laminate is however not included in claim 1.

2.1.4 A further, at least prima facie, non-compliance with the requirement of Article 123(2) EPC arises due to only a selection of features concerning the location of the leg portions having been included in claim 1, which features have been taken from a disclosure of a larger number of features disclosed in combination in the description in the specific context of the leg elastic members. Para. [0016] discloses not only that the leg elastic members are disposed along inward curves of the exterior laminate to form the leg portions, but also at least that these members extend to the side edges and overlap with, or continue to, each other, and that a substantially continuous loop of leg gather is formed. These features are structurally related to the leg elastic members taken-up into claim 1 since they describe the only disclosed arrangement of these members, and thus the extent of the leg portions. It thus follows that the omission of at least these features from claim 1 presents the skilled person with new information in the form of a new combination of features which is at least prima facie not directly and unambiguously derivable from the application as originally filed, such that the subject-matter of claim 1 would contravene the requirement of Article 123(2) EPC.

Regarding the respondent's argument that further detail of the leg elastic members from para. [0016] was not necessary, since those in the crotch region and at the side edges were remote from the regions (71) of concern for the definition of the invention, this is not found relevant as regards the matter of compliance with Article 123(2) EPC. The leg elastic members, as stated in lines 1 to 2 of para. [0016], form the leg portions such that the extent and nature of the leg elastic members is of fundamental structural importance for defining the leg portions. In para. [0016] the leg elastic members are stated to 'overlap ... in the crotch section' and to 'overlap with each other .... when the side edges ... are joined together' thus forming a 'substantially continuous loop of leg gather'. By the above definition of the leg elastic members forming the leg portions, these further features of the leg elastic members from para. [0016] define the physical extent of the leg portions and thus have a fundamental structural relationship with the leg portions. It thus follows that the omission from claim 1 of these further features of the leg elastic members prima facie offends Article 123(2) EPC.

2.1.5 The subject-matter of claim 1 thus at least prima facie fails to meet the requirement of Article 123(2) EPC.

2.1.6 Since the subject-matter of claim 1 is not prima facie allowable, which would be necessary for fulfilling the need for procedural economy and consequently admitting the request into the proceedings, the Board exercised its discretion under Article 13(1) RPBA not to admit this request into proceedings.

3. No further request was filed by the respondent. With no request on file which is both admitted and allowable, the patent must be revoked.

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The decision under appeal is set aside.

2. The patent is revoked.

T 1977/10 - Perpetuum mobile

EPO T 1977/10

For the decision, click here

Key points

• The appeal is against the refusal of an application for, essentially, a kind of perpetual motion machine using permanent magnets
• The board refuses under Article 83 (rather than Article 57 EPC).
• The Board cites Wikipedia for "conservation of energy".
• Although the claim is directed to a "rotor for magnetic motor", the Board interprets the claim as if it specifies not just a rotor for a magnetic motor, but a magnetic motor comprising a rotor and a stator. The Board then notes that a motor is defined as a " device that creates motion", and finds that the claimed device can not create motion and hence could not act as a motor. The Board then concludes that the claim, therefore, does not meet Article 83 EPC. 
• If the claim would not have recited "for magnetic motor", but only the structural arrangement of the magnets, Article 57 EPC would have been appropriate as a ground for refusal, in my view.

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. Contested decision

The applicant's appeal contests the examining division's decision to refuse Euro-PCT application [....]

Claim 1 reads as follows:

"1. Rotor for magnetic motor, formed by magnets (2) and material (4) that orientates the magnetic field, both elements forming groups arranged around a shaft (5), in the radius of the external circumference of the rotor (1) body, separated by a distance; the immobile stator (3) is close to the external circumference of the rotor (1) body, with the axis of the stator being orthogonal to the rotor radius and parallel to the rotation plane of the rotor; the rotor magnets (2) have an only magnetic pole on the flat faces with the largest surface area; characterized because each group of the rotor (1) is formed of at least one magnet (2), which has one face with the two magnetic poles facing the stator (3), and a group of the rotor with several magnets (2) has its magnets arranged one after the other with the magnetic poles of the flat faces with the largest surface area in attraction, on a circular, spiral, staggered or oblique line; the material (4) that orientates the magnetic field is placed on the side of the face of the magnet (2) at the end of the group closest to the stator (3), and the material (4) is placed on the side of an only magnetic pole."  [...]

Reasons for the Decision

T 0910/12 - Public prior use

EPO T 0910/12

For the decision, click here

Key points

• This decision concerns possibly novelty-destroying public prior use. However, the service manual provided as evidence of the public prior use (together with invoices) does not disclose all features of the claim. Hence, the claim is held to be novel over the public prior use.

Reasons for the Decision

1. The appeal is admissible.

2. Background of the invention

The patent relates to materials handling device, such as a fork lift truck, see specification, paragraph [0002]. Typically such a device has a carriage assembly, e.g. for moving forks vertically. The assembly is raised by pumping hydraulic fluid into a cylinder and lowered by releasing the fluid. Conventionally, a mechanical safety valve at the base of the cylinder, called a velocity fuse, shuts off flow out of the cylinder when the lowering speed exceeds a fixed limit.

A disadvantage with this arrangement is that a driver might sometimes want to exceed the lowering speed-limit to improve their productivity, and indeed could safely do so, but the velocity fuse prevents this, see specification column 1, lines 34 to 40.

To overcome this, the invention of claim 1 provides an electronically controlled valve to carry out the function of the velocity fuse. A control structure closes the valve in the event of an unintended descent of a carriage assembly in excess of a commanded speed, see also specification, paragraph [0009]. This allows the driver to execute intended descents, even at high speed, whilst unintended descents at speeds exceeding a command speed are prevented, paragraph [0010].

J 0018/14 - Undoing of transfer

EPO J 18/14

For the decision, click here [DE]

 

Note 02.01.2024: an English version of the decision is available as J 0016/1: link

EPO Headnote

Die Rückumschreibung einer vollzogenen Umschreibung im Europäischen Patentregister ist nicht ohne weiteres gerechtfertigt, wenn nachträglich Zweifel an dem hinreichenden Nachweis der behaupteten Rechtsnachfolge auftreten. Gegebenenfalls kommt vielmehr zugunsten des ursprünglich Eingetragenen die Aussetzung des Eintragungs- bzw. Einspruchsverfahrens in Betracht.

EPO Headnote (informal translation)

Undoing a completed registration of a transfer of a patent or patent application in the European Patent Register is not justified without more, when subsequently doubts occur about whether the proof of the alleged succesion in title is sufficient. Rather, suspension of the examination or opposition proceedings is to be considered in favour of the originally registered person.

"When a title to a European patent or patent application has been transferred and the European Patent Register has been amended to reflect this, it is not justified, if doubt later arises as to sufficient proof of succession in title,to undo the registration of the transfer. Nevertheless a request,(by the party having been registered before), for staying the grant and/or the opposition proceedings could be taken into consideration" (J 16/14)

Key points

• A transfer of a patent application was registered. The previous applicant was informed of the transfer. The previous applicant filed a protest and requested the transfer to be undone. The Legal Division reversed the transfer. The assignee (new owner) filed an appeal.
• The Board decides that the Legal Division was not correct in undoing the transfer, because a duly signed written contract had been submitted as evidence. Questions of whether the person signing on behalf of the assignor was had authority to sign and/or whether the transfer was unlawful, are beyond the scope of examination by the EPO. Because the assignee had been registered as applicant, he is deemed to be entitled in proceedings before the EPO (Article 60(3) EPC).
• The Board suspends proceedings under Rule 14, and considers the proceedings before the national courts regarding the invalidity of the transfer to be proceedings under Article 61.

Sachverhalt und Anträge

I. Die Beschwerde richtet sich gegen die Entscheidung der Rechtsabteilung vom 28. April 2014, mit der sie den Antrag der Beschwerdeführerin, sie wiederum als Anmelderin bzw. Patentinhaberin an den folgenden Patentanmeldungen und erteilten Patenten (im Folgenden "die betroffenen Anmeldungen und Patente") im Europäischen Patentregister einzutragen, zurückgewiesen hat:

Europäische Patentanmeldungen mit den Anmeldenummern
05 002 204.5 (Beschwerdeaktenzeichen J 22/14)
06 013 136.4 (Beschwerdeaktenzeichen J 16/14)
06 762 753.9 (Beschwerdeaktenzeichen J 21/14)
06 762 754.7 (Beschwerdeaktenzeichen J 20/14)
08 008 210.0 (Beschwerdeaktenzeichen J 17/14)

Europäische Patente
EP 1 907 634 (Beschwerdeaktenzeichen J 18/14)
EP 1 698 733 (Beschwerdeaktenzeichen J 19/14).

II. Dem liegt folgender Sachverhalt zugrunde:

Die Beschwerdegegnerin war ursprünglich als Anmelderin der genannten fünf Europäischen Patentanmeldungen und als Inhaberin der genannten beiden Europäischen Patente in das europäische Patentregister eingetragen. Als europäischer Vertreter war jeweils Herr Patentanwalt Weigel im Patentregister genannt. Mit Schreiben vom 23. Juni 2010 (für EP 1 698 733: 22. Juni 2010) hat Herr Patentanwalt Weigel beim EPA unter Berufung darauf, dass er sowohl die bisherige Anmelderin/Inhaberin als auch die zukünftige Anmelderin/Inhaberin der betroffenen Anmeldungen und Patente (die jetzige Beschwerdeführerin), vertrete, jeweils die Umschreibung des Registers auf die Beschwerdeführerin beantragt und zum Nachweis des Rechtsübergangs Auszüge aus einer Übertragungsvereinbarung ("Assignment Agreement") vom 25. März 2010 vorgelegt, die auf Seiten der Übertragenden von Herrn Richard Heindl, von Seiten der Erwerberin von Herrn Enrico Farroni als Präsident ihres Verwaltungsrats unterzeichnet war. Zum Nachweis der Vertretungsbefugnis des Herrn Richard Heindl für die Beschwerdegegnerin lag ein an diesen gerichtetes Schreiben vom 27. Oktober 2003 vor, in dem ihm von Herr Roberto Redondo Wendt als "President" der Beschwerdegegnerin bestätigt wurde, dass Richard Heindl zum CEO der Beschwerdegegnerin bestellt ist ("named and recognized as the CEO of PilePro LLC").

III. Die Umschreibung des Registers auf die Beschwerdeführerin wurde jeweils antragsgemäß vorgenommen.

IV. Hiergegen hat sich die Beschwerdegegnerin mit ihrem am 19. August 2011 beim EPA eingegangenen Schreiben gewendet und die Rückumschreibung oder hilfsweise die Aussetzung der Verfahren bis zum rechtskräftigen Abschluss des über die betroffenen Anmeldungen und Patente anhängigen Zivilverfahrens vor dem Kantonsgericht Zug (Schweiz) beantragt. Die Beschwerdegegnerin hat gerügt, dass Herr Patentanwalt Weigel betreffend die Umschreibverfahren keine Vertretungsmacht für sie besessen habe. Außerdem hat die Beschwerdegegnerin beanstandet, dass der Umschreibungsstelle die Übertragungsvereinbarung nur auszugsweise vorgelegen habe, weswegen die Umschreibung nicht hätte vorgenommen werden dürfen. Die Übertragungsvereinbarung sei auch nicht wirksam, denn Herr Richard Heindl habe keine alleinige Zeichnungsberechtigung für diese Vereinbarung besessen. Nach allgemeinen Rechtsgrundsätzen sei das EPA zum Widerruf von rechtswidrigen Verwaltungsakten, im vorliegenden Fall der Umschreibungen, verpflichtet. Jedenfalls aber seien alle anhängigen Verfahren vor dem EPA wegen einer einstweiligen Verfügung des Schweizerischen Kantonsgerichts Zug vom 1. September 2010, mit der der jetzigen Beschwerdeführerin unter Androhung von Zwangsmaßnahmen untersagt worden war, über die hier betroffenen Anmeldungen und Patente zulasten der jetzigen Beschwerdegegnerin Verfügungen zu treffen, auszusetzen. Die entsprechende Hauptklage sei fristgerecht bei dem Schweizerischen Kantonsgericht anhängig gemacht worden. [...]

T 0720/12 - Repeating arguments in appeal

EPO T 720/12

For the decision, click here

Key point

• In this case, the patentee as respondent argued that the appeal was inadmissible.
• The patentee seems to have argued that the opponent had only repeated earlier arguments and had not presented new arguments in appeal.
• The Board: " Further, the arguments in the cited paragraphs of point 3.1 of the statement deal with the decision, more importantly had to be repeated because they had not been taken into consideration in the impugned decision. This concerns the point made by the opponent that the portion (38) of the shaft (37) is "exposed" and "can be engaged directly", which is indeed not discussed in the impugned decision, points II.3.2 and II.3.4. This would imply that the impugned decision has insufficiently taken into account the opponent's arguments presented in the first instance proceedings. Such a repetition cannot lead to an inadmissible appeal (T 1188/08, supra, point 1.1).

Reasons for the Decision

1. Admissibility of the appeal

1.1 The respondent [Patentee] contests the admissibility of the appeal arguing that the statement setting out the grounds of appeal (hereafter referred to as the statement) fails to indicate the reasons why the decision under appeal is wrong or why it should be set aside, contrary to Article 108, third sentence, EPC and Rule 99(2) EPC.

1.2 For the respondent, the statement does not deal with the impugned decision, does not even refer to it, and merely repeats the earlier objections against the patent. For admissibility, the impugned decision is to be attacked, not the patent, the appeal proceedings being distinct proceedings and not affording to have a "second go" in opposition. In the present case, there is not even a request to set aside the impugned decision. For an appeal to be regarded admissible, an analysis of the reasons given in the impugned decision is required, which is missing in the present statement
(T 1188/08, points 1.1 and 1.4; T 95/10, point 1; T 349/09, points 4-6, 10; none published in OJ EPO; Case Law of the Boards of Appeal, 7th Edition, 2013, IV.E.2.6.3.b).

T 0098/13 - Inescapable trap by disclaimer

EPO T98/13
For the decision, click here

Key points

• Claim 1 as granted contained an undisclosed disclaimer in view of D1. D1 is a US patent and not an accidental disclosure. The disclaimer contravenes Art. 123(2). Simply removing it contravenes Art. 123(3) EPC.
• Hence, the case presents a cautionary example of the inescapable trap. The patentee submitted 35 auxiliary requests. None got the patent out of the trap.

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The proprietor appealed against the decision of the opposition division, posted on 17 October 2012, to revoke the European patent No. 1 547 443 B1. The statement of grounds of appeal was received on 25 February 2013.

II. The opposition division came to the conclusion that both the European patent as granted and the claims of the first auxiliary request contained subject-matter which extended beyond the content of the application as filed, contrary to Article 123(2) EPC, and that the proposed second auxiliary request infringed Article 123(3) EPC, while the third auxiliary request prima facie did not comply with the requirements following from Articles 84 and 123(2),(3) EPC.

J 0002/15 - Retraction of withdrawal

EPO J 2/15

For the decision, click here

Key points

• The case concerns the retraction of a withdrawal. The retraction was filed by fax on 21.02, published in the Register on 24.02 and the attempted retraction / correction under Rule 139 EPC was filed on 06.03. The expected publication date of the withdrawal in the European Patent Bulletin was 12.04.
• The request is refused, firstly because the withdrawal had been published in the Register. The publication in the Bulletin is not relevant (following J 1/11).
• The withdrawal is held to be not ambiguous or conditional, as argued by the patentee.

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. This case concerns the retraction of a withdrawal of European patent application no. 04751794.1 with the title ALLOGENEIC CELL THERAPY: MIRROR EFFECT that was derived from the PCT application WO2004US14589 filed on 11 May 2004 in the name of Immunovative Therapies, Ltd. The application on 28 November 2005 entered into the European phase, and was given the internal reference number P51557D EP by the European representative.

II. On 21 February 2006, the applicant's European representative, Mr. Downing, wrote a facsimile letter to the European Patent Office requesting an unconditional withdrawal of the application. The facsimile mentioned the European application number (04751794.1), the applicant (Immunovative Therapies, Inc.), and provided the reference number "P51557D EP". The text was very short:
"We hereby withdraw the application on behalf of the applicant. We request a refund of any fees possible, in particular the examination fee."