T 1213/13 - Death of opponent

Key points

• The opponent-appellant died during the appeal procedure. The Boards sends a notification to enquire whether there are any heirs. No response is received. The Board declares to close the appeal procedure. 

EPO T 1213/13 - link

Exposé des faits et conclusions

I. Le requérant (opposant) a formé un recours contre la décision de la division d'opposition rejetant l'opposition contre le brevet européen N**(o) 1 870 510.

II. Suite à une citation à une procédurale orale, la chambre de recours a été informée par télécopie du décès du requérant par Mme C., pacsée avec le défunt, domiciliée à la même adresse. La copie d'un acte de décès a été transmise simultanément.

III. La procédure orale a été annulée.

IV. Une notification de la chambre conformément à la règle 100(2) CBE, envoyée à l'adresse du requérant (et à l'intimée-titulaire), visait à établir si le requérant décédé a laissé des héritiers habiles à lui succéder qui entendaient continuer la procédure de recours. Selon la chambre, à défaut d'héritier intéressé et à défaut de réponse dans le délai suivant la notification, la procédure devrait être close.
V. Aucune réponse fut reçu.

Motifs de la décision

1. La chambre constate que le requérant, i.e. la seule partie à la procédure aux prétentions de laquelle la décision attaquée n'a pas fait droit (article 107 CBE), est décédé.

T 0843/15 - Presented PowerPoint not prior art

Key points

• The Board decides that a process scheme illustrated on sheet 15 of a PowerPoint is not prior art. It is not disputed that the PowerPoint was used for public presentation at a conference (before the priority date). 
• Machine translation:  "Given the time allotted to the presentation [20 minutes] and the fact that there is a lot of information in the slide show, it is not clear that the speaker did not deviate, during his presentation, from the elements he intended to present and / or that he has presented elements in such a way that the public has not been able to take note of them." 
• The Board also notes that the process scheme at issue was on one of the last sheets of the slide show and that the process scheme was merely an example and not the focus of the presentation.

EPO T 0843/15 - link

Motifs de la décision

1. Document D22 - Recevabilité

1.1 L'intimée a déposé le document D22 deux semaines avant la procédure orale devant la division d'opposition. La requérante demande que ce document soit considéré comme introduit tardivement et qu'il ne soit pas accepté dans la procédure.

1.2 La Chambre tient à rappeler que la division d'opposition, appliquant le critère de la pertinence de prime abord, a décidé d'admettre dans la procédure le document D22 qui avait été déposé tardivement (point 2.2 des motifs de la décision ; point 3.2 du procès-verbal de la procédure orale).

1.3 La Chambre est d'avis que, dans cette décision, la division d'opposition a exercé correctement son pouvoir d'appréciation conféré par l'article 114(2) CBE. Comme le document D22 a été admis à juste titre dans la procédure d'opposition et la décision attaquée se fonde sur ce document, il doit être pris en compte dans la procédure de recours (voir aussi T 1652/08, point 3.5 des raisons ; T 2513/11, point 4.3 des raisons).

2. Mise à disposition du public du contenu de D22

2.1 L'intimée soutient que le document D22 est la copie d'un diaporama PowerPoint qui aurait été projeté publiquement au cours de la conférence IMechE "Carbon Capture: Technology Options and Making Plant Carbon Capture Ready" qui s'est tenue le 5 juin 2007 à Londres, avant la date de priorité du brevet (1er août 2008).

2.2 La division d'opposition a décidé que la divulgation au public du contenu de D22, en particulier du schéma d'installation OC2 à la page 15 de D22 (reproduit ci-dessous), était établie. Elle s'est ensuite appuyée sur le schéma OC2 pour décider que l'objet revendiqué n'était pas inventif.

FORMULE/TABLEAU/GRAPHIQUE

2.3 Toutefois, pour les raisons suivantes, la Chambre estime que l'intimée n'a pas prouvé de manière suffisante que le schéma OC2 a été rendu accessible au public le 5 juin 2007.

2.3.1 En raison du caractère éphémère d'une divulgation orale à une conférence, il est admis, et l'expérience montre que l'on ne saurait simplement partir du principe qu'une divulgation orale concorde exactement avec son support écrit. Si un conférencier fait une présentation orale en s'appuyant sur un diaporama, comme c'est ici le cas, ce document peut établir une présomption du contenu de la présentation, mais ce document, en soi, ne suffit pas à garantir que le contenu du diaporama a bien été présenté intégralement et, si oui, de façon intelligible. Pour déterminer quelles informations ont été réellement divulguées au public au cours d'une divulgation orale, il est donc généralement nécessaire de produire des éléments de preuve supplémentaires, tels que des déclarations ou des notes écrites du public ou un polycopié distribué au public (cf. La Jurisprudence des Chambres de recours de l'OEB, 8ème édition, 2016, chapitre III.G.3.3.2, en particulier T 1212/97 et T 2003/08).

2.3.2 Dans le cas d'espèce, pour prouver la divulgation du contenu du diaporama D22, l'intimée a fourni une copie du programme de la conférence (D23) et une déclaration écrite du conférencier (D24). La question est donc de savoir si les documents D22, D23 et D24 permettent de prouver de manière suffisante que le public a pu appréhender les caractéristiques du schéma OC2 le 5 juin 2008, comme le prétend l'intimée.

T 0903/16 - Known embodiments are disclosed

Key points

• In this examination appeal, the application was filed with only method claims. Later a device is claimed. The ED refused the application under Art. 123(2) EPC.
• " [T]he Examining Division apparently considered that the devices disclosed in the application were not declared to belong to the invention, and for this reason claiming them constituted an infringement of Article 123(2) EPC." 
• The Board explains that the ED's approach is wrong. " [The crucial consideration is whether the subject-matter as such is clearly and unambiguously derivable from the application as filed[]. The fact that in the application the disclosed range of devices is stated to be within the means known to one skilled in the art may be considered when examining other EPC requirements, e.g. novelty and inventive step, but it has no bearing on the question of disclosure for the purposes of Article 123(2) EPC." 

EPO T 0903/16 -  link

3. Added subject-matter - main request

The Examining Division argues in the appealed decision that the original disclosure does not "indicate, define or imply" that the devices described therein could be new and inventive (see reasons 21.3): "To then claim such devices is considered an infringement of Article 123(2) EPC". On the face of it, the Examining Division apparently considered that the devices disclosed in the application were not declared to belong to the invention, and for this reason claiming them constituted an infringement of Article 123(2) EPC.

According to established case law, the requirements laid down in Article 123(2) EPC are understood to mean that an amendment may only be made within the limits of what a skilled person would derive directly and unambiguously, using common general knowledge, and seen objectively and relative to the date of filing, from the whole content of the description, claims and drawings as filed (see see Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office (CLBA), 8th edition 2016, Chapter II.E.1.2.1, with further reference to the "gold standard" cited in decision G 2/10). The question of whether or not the amended subject-matter in the documents originally filed is declared to be new and inventive, or whether such an assessment of novelty and inventiveness can merely be implied from the wording used in the application, is not relevant to the requirement of Article 123(2) EPC. Accordingly, the crucial consideration is whether the subject-matter as such is clearly and unambiguously derivable from the application as filed, i.e. in the present case of a device claim - the subject-matter of the claim being a device - whether the device with the claimed combination of features is clearly and unambiguously described in or derivable from the application as filed. The fact that in the application the disclosed range of devices is stated to be within the means known to one skilled in the art may be considered when examining other EPC requirements, e.g. novelty and inventive step, but it has no bearing on the question of disclosure for the purposes of Article 123(2) EPC.

The Board holds that the subject-matter of the claims is clearly and unambiguously derivable from the disclosure of the handheld blow dryer on page 16, lines 4-30. In lines 19-20 of page 16 it is further explicitly mentioned that the blow dryer can have a comb device attached to it, such as the device with reference numeral 60. The comb device with reference numeral 60 is further described on page 14, line 15, to page 15, line 5. Thus the further details of the attached comb device included in the dependent claims find their basis in this part of the description as originally filed.

From the above the Board concludes that the amended set of claims has a clear basis in the application as filed and is compliant with Article 123(2) EPC.

T 2536/17 - Commenting on admissibility

Key points

• In this examination appeal, the ED had allowed interlocutory revision, but had refused the requested reimbursement of the appeal fee. So, the Board decides on the reimbursement. The Board orders the reimbursement because of a substantial procedural violation.
• After an Rule 71(3) Communication, the applicant had filed amended claims under Rule 71(6). The ED did not admit these requests under Rule 137(3), and refused the application.
• The Board finds this a substantial procedural violation. The  ED should have given the applicant the opportunity to comment on the reasons for not admitting the filed requests, so as to not violate Article 113 EPC. 

EPO T 2536/17 -  link

Sachverhalt und Anträge

III. Im Rahmen des Prüfungsverfahrens hatte die Prüfungsabteilung am 20. Januar 2017 eine Mitteilung nach Regel 71 (3) EPÜ auf der Grundlage des Hilfsantrags II vom 18. Februar 2016 erlassen. Die Gründe der Ablehnung des Hauptantrags und des Hilfsantrags I wurden angegeben.

Mit Eingabe vom 19. Mai 2017 beantragte die Anmelderin Änderungen gemäß Regel 71 (6) EPÜ und reichte einen geänderten Hauptantrag und Hilfsanträge I bis IV ein. Auf Seite 2 dieser Eingabe wurde unter anderem folgendes angegeben: [...]

Daraufhin beschloss die Prüfungsabteilung die Zurückweisung der Anmeldung mit Entscheidung vom 20. Juli 2017. Die Prüfungsabteilung erachtete alle am 19. Mai 2017 eingereichten Anträge gemäß Regel 137 (3) EPÜ als formal nicht zulässig, einschließlich des Hilfsantrags IV, der dem Hilfsantrag II, auf der die Mitteilung nach Regel 71 (3) EPÜ basierte, entsprach. Für die Prüfungsabteilung eröffnete die Einreichung fünf neuer, einen anderen Schutzumfang definierender Anspruchssätze eine völlig neue Diskussion und stellte die Ergebnisse des bisherigen Verfahrens infrage.

Weiterhin wurde folgendes ausgeführt: "Da keine Einigung auf eine zu erteilende Fassung erzielt wurde und auch nicht mehr erzielt werden kann (Art. 113 (2) EPÜ), da der Anmelder die Erteilung des Hilfsantrags II vom 18. Februar 2016 abgelehnt hat und neue Anträge nach [sic] nicht mehr zulässig sind (R. 137(3) EPÜ), wird die Anmeldung gemäss RL C-V, 4.7.3 i.V.m. Art. 97(2) EPÜ zurückgewiesen."

Gegen diese Entscheidung richtete sich die Beschwerde, der abgeholfen wurde. In der Beschwerdebegründung machte die Beschwerdeführerin bezüglich der Rückzahlung der Beschwerdegebühr geltend, dass von der Prüfungsabteilung übersehen wurde, dass mit dem Hilfsantrag IV hilfsweise eine Erteilung auf der Basis der Regel 71 (3) EPÜ-Mitteilung vom 20. Januar 2017 beantragt wurde. Daher sei die Zurückweisung nicht gerechtfertigt. Das Übersehen des Hilfsantrags IV sei ein Verfahrensmangel, der den Antrag auf Rückzahlung der Beschwerdegebühr rechtfertige. [...]

Entscheidungsgründe

1. Die Prüfungsabteilung hat der Beschwerde abgeholfen. Die vorliegende Entscheidung betrifft ausschließlich den Antrag auf Rückstattung der Beschwerdegebühr, dem die Prüfungsabteilung in ihrer Abhilfeentscheidung nicht stattgegeben hat.

2. Der Antrag auf Rückzahlung der Beschwerdegebühr ist zulässig.

Er wurde aufgrund von Regel 103 (1) EPÜ zusammen mit der Beschwerde gestellt, noch bevor der Beschwerde in der Sache abgeholfen wurde (vgl. T 242/05 vom 20. September 2006). Da im Rahmen der Abhilfeentscheidung die beantragte Rückzahlung der Beschwerdegebühr nicht gewährt wurde, ist zur Entscheidung die Beschwerdekammer zuständig, die über die Beschwerde in der Sache zu entscheiden gehabt hätte (Regel 103 (3) Satz 2 EPÜ; G 3/03, ABl. EPA 2005, 344, Nr. 5 der Entscheidungsgründe), hier also die Technische Beschwerdekammer 3.2.01.

3. Der Antrag ist auch begründet.

Gemäß Regel 103 (1) a) EPÜ wird die Rückzahlung der Beschwerdegebühr angeordnet, wenn der Beschwerde abgeholfen oder ihr durch die Beschwerdekammer stattgegeben wird und die Rückzahlung wegen eines wesentlichen Verfahrensmangels der Billigkeit entspricht.

T 2056/13 - Copyright or secrecy

Key points

• In this opposition appeal, patentee submitted the creative argument that the copyright symbol in a prior art instruction manual in fact meant that the document was not publicly available. The Board does not accept the argument.
• " Denn Copyright-Vermerke implizieren grundsätzlich keine Geheimhaltungsverpflichtung, sondern beziehen sich auf das Verbot der Vervielfältigung und der Verbreitung unrechtmäßig hergestellter Exemplare des Werks oder von Auszügen desselben." 

EPO T 2056/13 -  link

Entscheidungsgründe

1. Stand der Technik

1.1 Das Handbuch E1 betrifft eine Bedienungsanleitung für eine Luftdüsenspinnmaschine der Firma Murata aus dem Jahr 1998, d.h. vor dem Prioritätstag vom 21. Oktober 2004. Dieses Handbuch weist im Einleitungsteil auf Seite A einen Copyright-Vermerk auf.

Dem Argument, wonach der Copyright-Vermerk darauf hindeute, dass das gesamte Handbuch einer Geheimhaltungsverpflichtung unterliege, die auch das Verbot umfasse, das Handbuch bzw. Teile daraus Dritten ohne ausdrückliche Genehmigung der Firma Murata zugänglich zu machen, kann die Kammer nicht beipflichten.

Denn Copyright-Vermerke implizieren grundsätzlich keine Geheimhaltungsverpflichtung, sondern beziehen sich auf das Verbot der Vervielfältigung und der Verbreitung unrechtmäßig hergestellter Exemplare des Werks oder von Auszügen desselben. Dass mit dem Vermerk keine Verpflichtung zur Geheimhaltung verbunden ist, ergibt sich im Übrigen auch aus dem vorletzten Absatz der Seite A der E1, wo die Möglichkeit des Weiterverkaufs und der Weitergabe des Handbuchs erwähnt ist.

1.2 Da die Schlussfolgerung der Einspruchsabteilung, wonach die E1 zum Stand der Technik gehöre, lediglich mit dem Hinweis auf den Copyright-Vermerk bestritten wurde, und die Beschwerdekammer - wie oben ausgeführt - dieser Argumentation nicht folgt, besteht für die Beschwerdekammer kein Grund von der Auffassung der Einspruchsabteilung abzuweichen. Die E1 gehört daher zum Stand der Technik nach Artikel 54 (2) EPÜ.

T 0510/13 - Late found document and search strategy

Key points

• In this opposition appeal, the opponent filed a further prior art document. The opponent gave as reason for admitting the document, that the document "could not be found earlier despite an extensive search conducted in preparation of the opposition against the patent in suit". In order to prove this, the appellant disclosed its search strategy.
• The Board does not accept the argument. "The board observes that the search strategy carried out by the appellant, [] was based exclusively on the combination of keywords that were introduced for search in the fields of: title, abstract and claims in the databases DEPATISnet and Espacenet. Such a strategy however, suffers from several deficiencies. Firstly, it relies on keywords in databases that do not provide any control of keywords. Secondly, the keywords were not searched in the full documents but only in their title, abstract and claims. Thirdly, the use of synonyms and truncations was apparently not contemplated. And lastly, the appellant did not perform any alternative search strategy independent from keywords, e.g. using patent classification symbols, in order to compensate the limitations of a strategy based exclusively on keywords." 
• Clearly, the Board members know how to search!

EPO T 0510/13 -  link

Reasons for the Decision

3.1 Reasons for late filing document (15)

According to the appellant, document (15) could not be found earlier despite an extensive search conducted in preparation of the opposition against the patent in suit. In order to prove this, the appellant disclosed its search strategy and submitted that even carrying out the search retroactively with the knowledge of document (15), it was very difficult to find the document (see letter dated 24 January 2014, page 2). As an additional hint at the difficulty in finding document (15), the appellant noted that the document had not been cited in the international search report.

The board observes that the search strategy carried out by the appellant, as outlined in its letter dated 24 January 2014, was based exclusively on the combination of keywords that were introduced for search in the fields of: title, abstract and claims in the databases DEPATISnet and Espacenet. Such a strategy however, suffers from several deficiencies. Firstly, it relies on keywords in databases that do not provide any control of keywords. Secondly, the keywords were not searched in the full documents but only in their title, abstract and claims. Thirdly, the use of synonyms and truncations was apparently not contemplated. And lastly, the appellant did not perform any alternative search strategy independent from keywords, e.g. using patent classification symbols, in order to compensate the limitations of a strategy based exclusively on keywords. For this reason, the board is not convinced that the appellant carried out a comprehensive search and that document (15) could not have been found. In addition, the appellant's remark that document (15) was not cited in the international search report does not prove that the document could not be found. This could simply mean that the International Searching Authority did not consider document (15) to be relevant.

It cannot therefore be concluded that document (15) could not have been filed in opposition.

T 2170/13 - Preamble of method claim

Key points

• In the present case, the Board follows the approach of T 1822/12 that the preamble of a method claim means "suitable for" . Hence, if a method claims recites a purpose of the method in the preamble, this feature can not provide novelty over a prior art method having all other features. 

EPO T 2170/13 - link

The final claimed feature is therefore implicitly disclosed in D1, and hence the subject-matter of claim 1 of the main request is not new within the meaning of Article 52(1) EPC and Article 54 EPC 1973.

4. Auxiliary Request

4.1 The auxiliary request was filed approximately one month before the oral proceedings. In response to a question from the Chairman, the opponent stated that it had no objection to this request being admitted into the proceedings, and hence the Board sees no reason not to admit it.

4.2 The sole issue to decide in relation to novelty is whether the re-drafting of claim 1 as a method claim, in particular having a first line reading "A method for neutralizing electrical charge on a work piece ...", alters the conclusion reached in the case of the main request.

4.3 In this respect, the findings in decision T 1822/12 appear to the Board to be particularly pertinent. In that case, claim 1 of the main request started as follows:

"A method for reducing acrylamide formation in thermally processed foods, said method comprising the steps of ..."

In arguing that the claimed subject-matter was novel, the appellant-proprietor acknowledged that the actual steps recited in the claim were known in the prior art, but cited the following passage from G 2/88 and G 6/88:

"A claim to the use of a known compound for a particular purpose, which is based on a technical effect which is described in the patent, should be interpreted as including that technical effect as a functional technical feature, and is accordingly not open to objection under Article 54(1) EPC provided that such technical feature has not previously been made available to the public" (G 2/88, Order, point (iii); G 6/88, Order).

The appellant argued that the provisions of G 2/88 and G 6/88 were general and were not linked to any specific claim category, and that novelty should therefore be acknowledged, since the cited prior art documents did not disclose the functional technical feature of reducing acrylamide.

4.4 The deciding Board did not agree, noting that the order in G 2/88 related "only to a use claim, namely to a claim for the new use of a known compound" (T 1822/12, Reasons, point 3.1.1, emphasis in the original). Under point 3.1.2, the Board stated the following:

"Furthermore the case law has constantly interpreted G 2/88 in a very restrictive manner, i.e. in a manner that only claims related to the use of a known compound for a particular purpose, based on a technical effect described in the patent, should be interpreted as including that technical effect as a functional technical feature, provided that such technical feature has not previously been made available to the public."

Numerous cases were cited in T 1822/12 in support of this restrictive approach (T 1343/04, points 2.1 and 2.2 of the reasons; T 304/08, section 3.3.2 of the reasons; T 1179/07, section 2.1.3 of the reasons; T 1049/99, section 8.5 of the reasons; T 2215/08, section 2.4.1 of the reasons and T 910/98, section 2.2.2 of the reasons).

The Board concluded (Reasons, point 3.1.3) that there was "no possibility to expand the ruling in G 2/88 and G 6/88 to a claim worded otherwise, namely a claim relating to a known method for a new purpose", and hence that the undisclosed purpose of reducing acrylamide formation could not be considered to be a distinguishing functional technical feature of the claim.

The wording of claim 1 had to be "construed as concerning a method 'suitable' for reducing acrylamide formation", and since it was not disputed that the prior art methods would be thus suitable, this feature did not confer novelty (Reasons, point 3.1.4).

4.5 The Board in the present case endorses this approach, and therefore interprets the opening wording of claim 1 to define a method suitable for neutralizing electrical charge on a work piece.

4.6 Document D1 discloses a particle beam device including a detector. Also disclosed, at least implicitly, is a method of operating the disclosed device (including the provision of the disclosed concrete features, the voltages to be applied, the pressure levels in the chamber, creation of gas cascades etc.).

The Board has already concluded that the detector of Fig. 4 of D1, when used for the disclosed purpose of detecting secondary electrons from the sample, would also have the effect of ejecting ions from the ionization chamber thereby neutralizing at least some of the electrical charge on the work piece. The method of operating the detector in D1 would therefore be suitable to provide the effect of neutralising the sample. In the light of the considerations set out above, neither the opening statement of purpose in claim 1 nor the final feature defining the effect establish novelty over document D1.

The remaining features of claim 1 of the auxiliary request are essentially the corresponding features of claim 1 of the main request, adapted to a method claim. The proprietor has not argued that these features further distinguish the claimed subject-matter over the prior art, and the Board judges them to be disclosed in D1.

4.7 The subject-matter of claim 1 of the auxiliary request is therefore not new within the meaning of Article 52(1) EPC and Article 54 EPC 1973.

5. Thus, in the absence of an allowable claim set, the patent must be revoked (Articles 101(2) and 101(3)(b) in conjunction with Article 111(1), second sentence, EPC).

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The decision under appeal is set aside.

2. The patent is revoked.