T 0816/15 - Search and inventive step

Key points

• In this examination appeal, the Boards admit a main request with a feature taken from the description. 
• The Board does not accept the applicants argument, that the feature provides for inventive step because none of the documents cited in the search report teaches the feature. 
• The Board points out that the fact that the documents cited in the search report, do not teach the feature, is simply because the claims as searched did not include that feature. Furthermore, even the Wikipedia article cited by the applicant shows that the feature was well-known.

	EPO T 0816/15 - link

1.1.8 Zur Verwendung des SNMP-Protokolls in einem Druckernetzwerk brachte die Beschwerdeführerin zudem vor, dass es überraschend sei, dass trotz der umfangreichen Recherche der Recherchenabteilung des Europäischen Patentamts keines der zitierten Dokumente den Einsatz dieses SNMP-Protokolls beinhalte und dass gerade die Organisation von Druckaufträgen zum Anmeldezeitpunkt (d.h. im Jahr 2011) unter Abbildung der aktuellen Drucker in Echtzeit über das
SNMP-Protokoll eine erfinderische Leistung darstelle.

Die Kammer kann auch dieser Aussage nicht zustimmen. Die Tatsache, dass keine der in der angefochtenen Entscheidung zitierten Druckschriften die Verwendung von SNMP offenbart, ist nach Ansicht der Kammer in erster Linie auf den Umstand zurückzuführen, dass das SNMP-Protokoll in den ursprünglichen Ansprüchen nicht erwähnt wurde und selbst in der Beschreibung lediglich an einer einzigen Stelle, nämlich auf Seite 9, Zeilen 20-23, genannt wird. Zudem sei nochmals angemerkt, dass auch der von der Beschwerdeführerin eingereichte Wikipedia-Auszug auf die Anwendbarkeit von SNMP auf Druckernetzwerke explizit hinweist.

T 0621/14 - Prior use and witness hearing

Key points

• In this opposition appeal, witnesses were heard during the first instance proceedings about alleged prior use. The opponent wishes to back-up the prior use with  a further declaration of one of the witnesses during the appeal. The Board does not admit this.
• The Board, Headnote: The subject-matter of a public prior use, as determined by the opposition division on the basis of a witness hearing for which the minutes were not contested, defines the extent of the prior art disclosed in the prior use for the appeal opposition proceedings if the alleged facts are the same (bei unverändertem Sachverhalt) .
• In other words, the takes the minutes of a witness hearing by the OD as binding for the appeal proceedings, if the minutes are not contested, and if the alleged facts are the same. The phrase "bei unverändertem Sachverhalt"  is unfortunately only used in the headnote and I'm not sure about the translation. 

Headnote
Der Gegenstand einer offenkundigen Vorbenutzung, der von der Einspruchsabteilung anhand einer Zeugeneinvernahme ermittelt und deren Niederschrift inhaltlich nicht bestritten wurde, stellt bei unverändertem Sachverhalt den Umfang des in der Vorbenutzung offenbarten Stands der Technik im Einspruchsbeschwerdeverfahren dar.

EPO  T 0621/14 - link 

Entscheidungsgründe

1. Neues Vorbringen

Die von der Beschwerdeführerin [opponent] vorgelegten Anträge:

• - eine neue Erklärung D28 (von Herrn B.N.) betreffend die Viskosität von Straßenmarkierungsmaterial zu berücksichtigen,
• - Herrn N. zu erlauben, insoweit in der mündlichen Verhandlung als technischer Experte vorzutragen,
• - farbige Fotos gemäß D16a bis D16h während der mündlichen Verhandlung auf einer Leinwand darzustellen,
• - den in der Erklärung D28 genannten YouTube-Film in der mündlichen Verhandlung vorzuführen,

sind mit Schreiben vom 18. Dezember 2017 erstmals im Beschwerdeverfahren und lange nach der Beschwerdebegründung ergänzend zu den offenkundigen Vorbenutzungen VB1 und VB2 gestellt worden.

Nach Prüfung im Rahmen von Artikel 12 (4) bzw. 13 (1) VOBK und Artikel 114 EPÜ gelangt die Kammer aufgrund folgender Überlegungen zu der Entscheidung, dieses späte Vorbringen nicht in das Verfahren zuzulassen.

T 1739/13 - Admissibility objection of own motion

Key points

• In this opposition appeal, the Board raises an admissibility objection to the Main Request of its own motion. The reason is that Main Requests contains dependent claims which were added in appeal. 
• " the main request additionally comprises dependent claims encompassing subject-matter which, as such, was not examined and decided upon by the opposition division. The subject-matter of dependent claims 23 to 25 was not present in any of the auxiliary requests underlying the decision under appeal. The introduction of this subject-matter into the appeal proceedings is not in line with the case law "

EPO  T 1739/13  -  link

Dependent claims 23 to 25

4. In the communication pursuant to Article 15(1) RPBA, the board drew the parties' attention to the case law on the filing of requests that had been filed and subsequently withdrawn in proceedings at first instance (Article 12(4) RPBA; cf. inter alia, T 361/08 of 3 December 2009, point 13 of the Reasons, and T 679/09 of 13 November 2012, point 12 of the Reasons). The board noted that deficiencies under Article 84 EPC of claims directed to a kit had already been dealt with during the opposition procedure and amended claim requests had been filed to address them (cf. points 2.2 and 2.3 of the "Summons to attend oral proceedings" issued by the opposition division; and claims 22 and 23 of auxiliary requests 1 and 2 filed by the patent proprietor on 15 March 2013 in reply thereto). None of these auxiliary requests were prosecuted at the oral proceedings before the opposition division because the patent proprietor replaced all requests then on file by a new main request and new auxiliary requests 1 to 3; the requests underlying the decision under appeal.

5. Claim 22 of the main request differs from claim 22 of the main request underlying the decision under appeal by the deletion of subject-matter defining the chemical nature of the ribonuclease inhibitor (cf. point IX supra). The deletion of this subject-matter in claim 22 and its introduction in dependent claims 23 to 25 attempts to overcome the objection raised under Article 84 EPC against the main request underlying the decision under appeal (cf. pages 10 and 11, point 5 of the decision under appeal).

6. The scope of claim 22 of the main request is identical to that of claim 22 of auxiliary request 1 of the decision under appeal. However, the main request additionally comprises dependent claims encompassing subject-matter which, as such, was not examined and decided upon by the opposition division. The subject-matter of dependent claims 23 to 25 [which are dependent on claim 22 and define the nature of the ribonuclease inhibitor (granted claims 31 to 33), see IX of the decision] was not present in any of the auxiliary requests underlying the decision under appeal. The introduction of this subject-matter into the appeal proceedings is not in line with the case law referred to above.

Conclusion

7. Thus, the board, exercising its discretion pursuant to Article 13(1) RPBA, does not admit the main request into the appeal proceedings.

T 2012/13 - Winner pays

Key points

• In this opposition appeal, the Board admits a new request during the first oral proceedings. At the opponent's requests, the oral proceedings are adjourned because a rebuttal of the amended claims, requires the filing of further technical reports. The Board allows the amended claims during the second oral proceedings.
• However, the Board gives a costs award against the patentee: the patentee has to pay 50% of the costs of the fees of the professional representative of the opponent for attending the second oral proceedings (excluding preparation work). 
• The second oral proceedings were on 7 July 2017. The decision was announced orally on 12 July 2017 (7 July being the only date of the summons ). I am not sure if this is very common. There are minutes of oral proceedings on 7 July 2017 lasting from 09:00 to 17:15 (link) and minutes of oral proceedings lasting from 08:45 to 08:55 (link). Those second minutes do not indicate that any of the parties were present and also do not indicate that they are about oral proceedings held on 12 July 2018. 
• 02.01.2019: I clarified that the summons was for 7 July. 

EPO - T 2012/13

VII. Dans une communication du 20 janvier 2017 en préparation d'une procédure orale prévue pour le 1er février 2017, la chambre a signalé que si une requête des requérantes était recevable et répondait aux exigences des articles 83 et 123 CBE, elle envisageait le renvoi de l'affaire devant la division d'opposition.

VIII. Une première procédure orale s'est tenue devant la chambre le 1er février 2017.

i) Durant cette procédure, les requérantes ont déposé un nouveau jeu de revendications modifiées, libellé requête subsidiaire 1 (ci-après requête du 1er février 2017). Au final, seule cette dernière requête a été maintenue par les requérantes.

ii) Comparée à la revendication 1 telle que délivrée (point II ci-dessus), la revendication 1 de la requête du 1er février 2017 comprend en plus la définition suivante du "liant": [] 

iii) L'intimée a contesté la recevabilité de cette requête au regard de son caractère tardif.

T 2106/14 - Re-establishment

Key points

• A renewal fee was not paid in time. RE is requested. The patent attorney had sent numerous reminders to a manager employed with the client, Mr. Tayler. That manager was travelling a lot. During the manager's travelling " the reminders for the renewal fees were put on a pile of unsolicited "junk" mail by an unidentified person at the office. On his return, therefore, Mr Taylor did not take note of the reminders."
• " The board concurs with the examining division's finding that the applicant's authorised representative had exercised all due care required by the circumstances by satisfactorily monitoring the relevant deadlines and by duly informing the applicant." 
• However, due care is denied for the working arrangements at the client.
• " The appellant has not plausibly shown that Mr Taylor had taken appropriate measures, in view of his impending workload and travel, to ensure that he would not leave undone anything which was expected of him with a view to observing the time limit for payment of the renewal fees. On the contrary, the circumstances show that Mr Taylor took no precautions in order to avoid a loss of rights. " 

EPO T 2106/14 - link

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The appeal lies from a decision of the examining division rejecting the applicant's request for re-establishment of rights in respect of the time limit for payment of the renewal fee for the fifth year with additional fee.

II. In view of the applicant's request for oral proceedings, the examining division was enlarged by the addition of a legally qualified examiner (Article 18(2) EPC).

V. The appellant's submissions in support of its request for re-establishment of rights may be summarised as follows:

(a) The payment of renewal fees was arranged as follows: The renewal department of the authorised representative monitored time limits for renewal fee payment. Reminders were sent to Mr A. Taylor, the appellant's head of science, requesting his instructions and advance payment before executing the payment of renewal fees.

T 0355/15 - Implicit Main Request

Key points

• The OD had decided to revoke the patent for insufficient disclosure.
• The Main Request filed with the Statement of grounds is: " It is requested to set aside the decision of the opposition division to revoke the patent and to remit the case back to the opposition division for further examination."
• According to the Board, the appeal is admissible despite this Main Request.
• " the Board concludes that the Appellant [proprietor] implicitly requested, both in its notice of appeal and in its statement of grounds, that the revocation decision be set aside and the proceedings be continued on the basis of the highest-ranking request that had ultimately been pending before the Opposition Division" .

III. In the decision under appeal, the Opposition Division came inter alia to the following conclusions:

- The modified version of the patent in suit according to the Main Request filed with letter dated 7 November 2014 was not objectionable on formal grounds.- However, the patent in suit did not sufficiently disclose how the "reducing" step g) of Claim 1 was to be carried out in order to achieve the "claimed improvement".Thus, the person skilled in the art seeking to carry out the claimed reduction step "would indeed need to embark on a research program, in particular in as far as reductant, further components and operating conditions are concerned".

IV. With its statement setting out the grounds of appeal the Appellant (Patent Proprietor) submitted four sets of amended claims as Auxiliary Requests 1 to 4. It rebutted the reasoning given by the Opposition Division as regards the finding of insufficiency of the disclosure, referring also to newly filed documents supposed to illustrate common general knowledge regarding the FT process.

Reasons for the Decision

1. Admissibility of the appeal

1.1 In the decision under appeal, the Opposition Division concluded that the patent had to be revoked since it was objectionable under Article 100(b)/83 EPC, both in the amended version according to the then pending Main Request, and in the amended version according to the then pending Auxiliary Request 1.

1.2 In its notice of appeal dated 13 February 2015, the Appellant requested "that the decision of the Opposition Division be withdrawn and the subject European patent be maintained".

For the Board, this is an at least implicit request to set aside the decision under appeal, which "defin[es] the subject of the appeal" pursuant to Article 108, Rule 99(1)(c) EPC.

1.3 As pointed out by the Respondent, neither of notice of appeal and statement of grounds of appeal contains an express request for the maintenance of the patent in a particular version (claims, description pages and figures).

1.3.1 In the present case this does not, for the Board, mean that the requirement stipulated in Rule 99(2) EPC is not met, according to which "the extent to which [the decision] is to be amended" must be indicated in the statement setting out the grounds of appeal.

1.3.2 In particular, the Appellant's statement setting out the grounds of appeal (point 2.1) contains inter alia the following requests:

"Main request
It is requested to set aside the decision of the opposition division to revoke the patent and to remit the case back to the opposition division for further examination."
Should the appeal board not allow our main request already based on our written submission, oral proceedings (Art.116 EPC) are requested".

1.4 Considering also

- that no new set of claims labeled Main Request was filed together with the statement of grounds,

- that the claims of the patent as granted are not mentioned, let alone considered further in the statement,

- that the statement contains no further indications as regards the version (claims, description pages, figures) of the patent to be considered in the first place,

the Board concludes that the Appellant implicitly requested, both in its notice of appeal and in its statement of grounds, that the revocation decision be set aside and the proceedings be continued on the basis of the highest-ranking request that had ultimately been pending before the Opposition Division, i.e. on the basis of the amended version according to the then pending Main Request (comprising Claim 1 as granted and amended dependent claims 2 to 11).

1.5 In the board's judgement, the appeal is, therefore, admissible (Article 108, Rules 99(1)c) and 99(2) EPC)

T 1819/13 - Claim for injecting antibiotic

Key points

• Claim 1 is in Swiss-type format and includes the feature " for use in treating or preventing a bacterial infection in an animal by injection of the medicament subcutaneously at the junction of a pinna with the cranium of the animal" . The Board decides that this feature of injection at a specific site does not make that the claim violates Article 53(c) EPC. 
• Furthermore, the feature provides for novelty.
• As a comment, note that the claim refers to "an antibiotic"  in general. I am not sure if that is a substance or composition in the sense of Article 54(4) EPC.

EPO T 1819/13 - link

X. With letter of 21 December 2017, the respondent filed amended sets of claims: auxiliary requests 1 to 9.
Auxiliary request 1 consists of fourteen claims. Claim 1 reads as follows:

"1. Use of an antibiotic for the manufacture of a medicament for use in treating or preventing a bacterial infection in an animal by injection of the medicament subcutaneously at the junction of a pinna with the cranium of the animal, wherein the animal is selected from cattle, swine, sheep and goats."

2. Exception to patentability (Article 53(c) EPC)

2.1 From 13 December 2007, Article 52(4) EPC 1973 (see point II above) was superseded by Article 53(c) EPC 2000 which also applies to European patent applications pending at the time of its entry into force and to European patents already granted at that time (see Article 1 of the Decision of the Administrative Council of 28 June 2001 on the transitional provisions under Article 7 of the Act revising the EPC of 29 November 2000). Hence, Article 53(c) EPC 2000 (hereinbelow: Article 53(c) EPC) applies to the patent in suit (see point I above).