T 1214/15 - More about the appeal fee

 Key points

• To end the year in style, yet another decision about the appeal fee refund rules of Rule 103.
• Both the patentee and the opponent appeal. 
• “ On 4 November 2020, the [opponent] withdrew the appeal, but remained party to the appeal proceedings as of right in accordance with Article 107, second sentence, EPC.”
• The Board surprisingly does not order a refund of the appeal fee at 25% to the opponent under Rule 103(4)(a) and does not discuss that provision at all. 
• If readers can help me with this, I would be grateful.
• Comment 25.03.2021: there was a 50% refund of the appeal fee, link.
• The Board: “The [opponent] requested reimbursement of the appeal fee based on an alleged procedural violation (Rule 103(1)(a) EPC), arguing that the opposition division failed to discuss, either during the oral proceedings or in the decision under appeal, the line of argument on inventive step put forward in the notice of opposition”
• The Board: “Although the respondent has withdrawn his appeal, reimbursement may still be considered ex officio by the board in accordance with Article 114(1) EPC, if deemed equitable by reason of a substantial procedural violation.”
• The Board then analyses whether there had been a substantial procedural violation, finding none.
• However, Rule 103(1)(a) requires first of all “where the Board of Appeal deems an appeal to be allowable, if such reimbursement is equitable by reason of a substantial procedural violation”. It is not at all cleary to me how Rule 103(1)(a) can be relevant if the opponent withdraws the appeal: I would say that a withdrawn appeal is hardly ‘allowable’.

EPO T 1214/15 -

https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t151214eu1.html

Request for reimbursement of the appeal fee


18. The respondent requested reimbursement of the appeal fee based on an alleged procedural violation (Rule 103(1)(a) EPC), arguing that the opposition division failed to discuss, either during the oral proceedings or in the decision under appeal, the line of argument on inventive step put forward in the notice of opposition, based on document (1) as the closest state of the art (see section XIV above).

19. Although the respondent has withdrawn his appeal, reimbursement may still be considered ex officio by the board in accordance with Article 114(1) EPC, if deemed equitable by reason of a substantial procedural violation.

20. In the communication of 2 October 2014 attached to the summons to oral proceedings in opposition proceedings, the opposition division took account of all the lines of argument on inventive step and, inter alia, expressed the view that, starting from document (1) as the closest state of the art and in view of document (9), the method of claim 1 according to the main request was not obvious to a person skilled in the art. Even though the respondent reiterated its line of argument based on document (1) in his reply of 27 January 2015, it appears from the minutes of the oral proceedings before the opposition division posted on 10 April 2015 that the sole line of argument brought forward by the respondent and discussed at the oral proceedings was based on document (3) as the closest state of the art in combination with document (9). This has never been disputed.

21. In view of the circumstances of the present case, the board is not persuaded that the alleged procedural violation occurred. If the respondent wished his objection of lack of inventive step based on documents (1) and (9) to be discussed at the oral proceedings and decided upon by the opposition division, it was to him to put forward the objection at the oral proceedings, or at least refer to its written submissions in this respect, and indicate that they were maintained. Failing that, the opposition division had to assume that the line of argument based on document (1) as the closest state of the art had been abandoned.

22. In the absence of a substantial procedural violation, the respondent's request for reimbursement of the appeal fee cannot be granted.

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The decision under appeal is set aside.

2. The case is remitted to the opposition division with the order to maintain the patent in amended form on the basis of claims 1 to 15 according to the main request filed on 12 March 2014 and, if required, a description to be adapted thereto.

T 2530/16 - Routine modifications

Key points

• The Board finds the technical effect to be not credible and then turns to the question whether the claimed device (a lamp) is an obvious alternative.
• “ In the same way, starting from a commercially available triphosphor low pressure mercury vapor discharge lamp, if the problem is merely to find alternative lamps regardless of their likely useful properties, all lamps which could be arrived at by routine modifications (such as using well-known equivalent phosphors or adjusting phosphor weight ratios) would be obvious, irrespective of their number, and this would include embodiments falling within the ambit of claim 1 ” (underlining added).
• The Board extensively cites T 939/92. 

EPO T 2530/16  - https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t162530eu1.html

3.10 Consequently, the Board is not persuaded that the problem of providing improved colour rendering is solved over the breadth of claim 1, and, as a result, this problem cannot serve as the objective problem within the context of the problem-solution approach. In the absence of any other specific problem plausibly solved across the entire breadth of the claim, the problem can only be seen as merely providing an alternative low pressure mercury vapor discharge lamp.

3.11 In the light of such a general requirement, essentially any conventional modification of the prior art could be seen as an obvious solution to the problem, for example, using different or additional known phosphors, or changing the phosphor weight ratios.

T 0777/15 - Appeal fee refund rules

 Key points

• The Board clarifies that the one-month period under Rule 103(4)(c) EPC can be extended under Rule 134(2) and (4) EPC and was extended by the Covid-19 notice.
• The Board clarifies that an appellant must withdraw (or abandon) it's own request for oral proceedings and does not benefit from another appellant withdrawing their request for oral proceedings (Rule 103(4)(c) does not say so because it mentions "if any request for oral proceedings is withdrawn").
• The Board clarifies that it is not enough for the partial refund if an auxiliary request for oral proceedings of an appellant becomes ineffective because the Board can accede to that party's main request (i.e. revocation of the patent as main request of the appellant-opponent) without oral proceedings (i.e. because the patentee as respondent disapproves the text of the patent).

T 0777/15 

https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t150777eu1.html

3. Partial reimbursement of appeal fees

3.1 Pursuant to Rule 103(4)(c) EPC, as in force since 1 April 2020, the appeal fee shall be reimbursed at 25% if any request for oral proceedings is withdrawn within one month of notification of the communication issued by the board of appeal in preparation for the oral proceedings, and no oral proceedings take place. The amended provision applies to any pending appeal pursuant to Article 2(2) of the Decision of the Administrative Council of 12 December 2019 amending Rule 103 EPC (CA/D 14/19, see OJ EPO 2020, A5), thus also to the present appeal case.

3.2 Appellant-opponent 2 withdrew the request for oral proceedings on 11 May 2020 whereas the board's communication was issued on 20 March 2020. However, in view of the Notice from the EPO dated 1 May 2020 concerning the disruption due to the COVID-19 outbreak (OJ EPO 2020, A60, updating the earlier Notices dated 15 March 2020 and 30 March 2020), and Rule 134(2) and (4) EPC, the board concludes that the withdrawal occurred in due time. The requirements for reimbursement of 25% of appellant-opponent 2's appeal fee pursuant to Rule 103(4)(c) EPC are therefore met.

4. No reimbursement of the appeal fees of appellant-opponent 3 and 5 is to be ordered.

4.1 The board construes Rule 103(4)(c) EPC to provide an incentive to a party that had initially requested oral proceedings before the board to reconsider any such request at a later stage of the appeal proceedings and, in case that the party abandons this request, to provide a reward by way of a partial reimbursement of this party's appeal fee. Accordingly, appellant-opponent 5, an appealing party not having requested oral proceedings in the proceedings before the board, does not benefit from another party's withdrawal of the request for oral proceedings. Rule 103(4)(c) EPC does thus not apply in relation to appellant-opponent 5.

4.2 Appellant-opponent 3 requested oral proceedings on the condition that the board intends to reach a decision other than setting aside the decision under appeal and revoking the patent in its entirety. This condition is not fulfilled since the outcome of the present case is as requested by the appellant-opponent 3 and, hence, appellant-opponent 3's request for oral proceedings has not become procedurally relevant. Moreover, appellant-opponent 3 has neither withdrawn its request for oral proceedings nor filed any statement which could be interpreted as a withdrawal of its request for oral proceedings.

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The appeal of appellant-opponent 5 is rejected as inadmissible.

2. The decision under appeal is set aside.

3. The patent is revoked.

4. The appeal fee of appellant-opponent 2 is reimbursed at 25% pursuant to Rule 103(4)(c) EPC.

T 1217/17 - Don't focus in your appeal reply brief

 Key points

• In this opposition appeal, the Board reverses the finding of the OD and concludes that claim 1 is not obvious starting from brochure D5. The opponent then wishes to present new inventive step attacks during the oral proceedings. The admissibility is discussed for more than one hour (point 7) and none of the attacks is admitted.
• The inventive step attacks based on D1-D4 and D6 as well as D1+D5 are not admitted because the opponent as respondent had merely referred to the submissions in the first instance proceedings in its Appeal Reply Brief (note, the patent was revoked by the OD). Moreover, the first instance submissions lacked detailed reasoning on this point. 
• "Damit überließ die Beschwerdegegnerin es ganz der Kammer und der Beschwerdeführerin herauszufinden, inwiefern und aus welchen Gründen die erfinderische Tätigkeit des Gegenstands des Anspruchs 1 im Hinblick auf den technischen Inhalt dieser Entgegenhaltungen in Frage gestellt werden soll. Im Einklang mit ständiger Rechtsprechung der Beschwerdekammern, vertritt die Kammer die Auffassung, dass sich ein Beteiligter nicht darauf beschränken kann, ein Konvolut von Dokumenten vorzulegen ohne substantiiert vorzutragen, welche Tatsachen durch welche konkreten Passagen oder Figuren dieser Dokumente belegt werden sollen."
• Opponent's argument that no detailed inventive step arguments regarding these further attacks were necessary because the OD had revoked the patent based on D5, does not convince the Board. Article 12(2) RPBA 2007 requires substantiation of all inventive step attacks to be possibly ('ggf.' in the German text) made in the appeal proceedings, already in the Appeal Reply  Brief (in case of the opponent as respondent, I add) (see also r.6.7 and 6.8 of the decision).
• The attacks based on prior use P3 and P4 are not admitted as lacking substantiation.
• Apparently, the opponent announced a speech on these inventive step attacks during the oral proceedings, and this speech was not admitted (as I understand it, before the speech was given). Opponent protested that the speech did not involve new submissions but only the elaboration of arguments based on documents already in the file.
• "Die [opponent] argumentiert zum einen, dass es sich bei dem angekündigten Vortrag um kein neues Beschwerdevorbringen im Sinne des Artikels 13(1) VOBK 2020 handele, sondern um eine in jeder Phase des Beschwerdeverfahrens zulässige Weiterentwicklung von in der Beschwerdeerwiderung bereits erwähnten Argumenten, die sich auf im Verfahren befindliche Entgegenhaltungen stützen."
• About why the announced speech would involve new facts: "Die Kammer vertritt die Auffassung, dass es sich bei den angekündigten, vorzutragenden Ausführungen nicht lediglich um neuen "Argumente" handelt, sonder auch um neue relevante "Tatsachen", wie z.B. die in der Beschwerdeerwiderung fehlende Merkmalanalyse, sowie die Angabe der konkreten Passagen in den oben genannten Beweismittel, die die von der Beschwerdegegnerin als bekannt betrachteten Merkmale des Anspruchs 1 vorwegnehmen."
• 
  

EPO T 1217/17 

https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t171217du1.html

3.4 Ausgehend von der Vorrichtung der Broschüre D5 und im Hinblick auf die oben genannten, zusätzlichen unterscheidenden Merkmale, stimmt die Kammer grundsätzlich der von der Beschwerdeführerin in der Beschwerdebegründung ausgeführten Aufgabestellung zu, nämlich:

den gleichzeitigen und gleichmäßigen Auftrag von Aromastoffen auf mehreren Tabaksträngen einer Mehrstrangzigarettenmaschine zu gewährleisten.

3.5 In Abweichung von der Schlussfolgerung der Einspruchsabteilung in der angefochtenen Entscheidung schließt sich die Kammer der Auffassung der Beschwerdeführerin an, dass die im Anspruch 1 zur Lösung der oben genannten Aufgabe vorgeschlagene Lösung auf einer erfinderischen Tätigkeit im Sinne der Artikel 52(1) und 56 EPÜ beruht.

Selbst wenn, im Einklang mit der Begründung der Einspruchsabteilung, eine Vervielfachung des bekannten Dosiersystems zum Zweck eines gleichzeitigen Auftrags von Aromastoffen auf mehreren Tabaksträngen als eine naheliegende Weiterbildung der bekannten einsträngigen Vorrichtung angesehen werden könnte, besteht für den Fachmann keine Anregung, die außerhalb des Regelkreises angeordnete, ungeregelte Konstantpumpe der Vorrichtung der D5 durch eine Verstellpumpe zu ersetzen, die Teil des Dosiersystems ist. Eine solche Modifizierung würde außerdem komplexe Anpassungen der Steuerungseinrichtung sowie ein Verzichten auf die regelbare Drosselanordnung voraussetzen, was jeweils nicht als naheliegend angesehen werden kann. Die Argumentation der Beschwerdegegnerin, die im Wesentlichen auf der sich vom technischen Inhalt der Broschüre D5 unterscheidenden, mehrstrangigen Ausführung der Dosiersysteme basiert und ergänzend darauf verweist, dass die Auswahl eine Verstellpumpe anstatt einer Konstantpumpe für den Fachmann naheliegend sei, ist somit nicht überzeugend.

Weitere Angrifflinien unter Artikel 56 EPÜ basierend auf D1 in Kombination mit D5, D1-D4, D6 sowie auf P3 und P4 - Vortrag in der Beschwerdeerwiderung

4. Im Laufe der mündliche Verhandlung kündigte die Beschwerdegegnerin an, dass sie, als Reaktion auf die oben ausgeführte Schlussfolgerung der Kammer, weitere Angrifflinien basierend auf den Dokumenten D1-D4 und D6, insbesondere auf der Kombination von D1 mit D5, sowie auf den offenkundigen Vorbenutzungen P3 und P4 vortragen wolle. Die Beschwerdeführerin trat der Berücksichtigung eines auf diesen Angrifflinien basierenden Vortrags entgegen mit der Begründung, dass sie in der Beschwerdeerwiderung entweder nicht ausreichend oder gar nicht substantiiert sind.

T 0482/19 - Merely cancelling claims: not admitted

Key points

• Patentee files auxiliary requests 12 and 13 one month before the oral proceedings before the Board. AR-12 is based on the claims as granted with the product claims deleted and keeping the claims for the manufacturing method.
•  “[Patentee] argued that the amendments in auxiliary requests 12 and 13 would not be an amendment to the case as they contained no new subject-matter. Therefore Article 13 RPBA would not be applicable. The method claims were part of the granted patent. The opponents did not raise particular objections to the method claim, but only referred to the objections raised in view of the product claim. The fact that the opponents failed to attack all independent claims properly at an earlier stage of the procedure could not be used to the detriment of the patent proprietor.” 
• The Board does not admit the requests.
• “The method claim indeed is more limited than the product claim because of [the method features specifying a step wherein a] mold is loaded with two different materials before the step of feeding steam. These features did not play any role in the appeal procedure, as the submissions of the parties were mainly related to the product claims that were present in all requests on file. However, these features would require to be considered in particular in relation to the issue of inventive step and this would result in a substantial and unexpected change in the discussion at the oral proceedings. Therefore the filing of auxiliary requests 12 and 13 constitute an amendment of the patentee's case according to Article 13 RPBA 2020 rendering them inadmissible [sic!] into the appeal proceedings. The patentee did not provide any exceptional circumstances, which have been justified with cogent reasons, why auxiliary request 12 and 13 were only filed at such a late stage of the procedure. Hence both auxiliary requests are not taken into account according to Article 13(2) RPBA 2020.”

EPO T 0482/19 - link
https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t190482eu1.html

5. Auxiliary requests 12, 13 - Admissibility

5.1 The Board did not admit auxiliary requests 12 and 13 into the appeal procedure.

5.2 Auxiliary request 12 is based on the claims as granted, wherein the product claims have been deleted. Auxiliary request 13 is based on the claims of auxiliary request 2, wherein the product claims have been deleted. Both requests were filed after the parties had been summoned to oral proceedings.

T 2483/16 - Beyond what is justified by the description

Key points

• In this examination appeal, the Board comments on the requirement of ‘support’ in Article 84.
• By way of introduction, if the claims are novel, inventive and sufficiently disclosed, and also have verbatim basis in the application as filed, can they still be refused under the 'support' requirement of Article 84? 
• The Board: “[The requirement of support in Article 84] means that the claimed subject-matter must have an adequate basis in the description and that the scope of the claims may not go beyond what is justified by the description and the drawings. In particular, the claimed subject-matter must have technical support in the description reflecting the applicant's effective contribution to the art. However, purely formal support, e. g. a verbatim repetition in the description of a claimed feature, is not sufficient for fulfilling this requirement”.
• As a comment, how to assess what is 'justified' by the description and the drawings?
• In this case, the Board notes “that none of the described embodiments disclose that the relaxed graded layer is epitaxially grown over the uniform cap layer as specified in feature [C]”.
• The Board does not expressly deal with the question of whether this feature C is perhaps a routine feature in the technical field at issue and does not comment on common general knowledge of the skilled person. The Board does not say that the skilled person would have any difficulty in reducing this feature to practice (indeed, established case law about Article 83 requires 'serious doubts' also in pre-grant examination). 

EPO T 2483/16 -  link



2. Support by the description

2.1 According to Article 84 EPC 1973 the claims define the matter for which protection is sought and have to be, inter alia, supported by the description.

This requirement means that the claimed subject-matter must have an adequate basis in the description and that the scope of the claims may not go beyond what is justified by the description and the drawings. In particular, the claimed subject-matter must have technical support in the description reflecting the applicant's effective contribution to the art. However, purely formal support, e. g. a verbatim repetition in the description of a claimed feature, is not sufficient for fulfilling this requirement (see T 127/02, point 3 of the Reasons; T 1048/05, point 11 of the Reasons). [...]

2.4. [...]

It is to be noted that none of the described embodiments disclose that the relaxed graded layer is epitaxially grown over the uniform cap layer as specified in feature (c1). This holds for all requests.

Rather, in relation to the first embodiment shown in Figure 1 it is indicated in the description of the application that the cap layer 150 is the outermost layer of a "virtual substrate" and constitutes the layer over which the compressively strained layer 160 and/or the tensilely strained layer 170 are disposed. [...]

Hence, the description of the embodiments of the invention does not provide technical support of the claimed subject-matter in relation to feature (c1).

T 0403/14 - Should have been filed before the Examining Division

Key points

• A case of a Board holding a request inadmissible which was filed in an appeal against a refusal with the Statement of grounds, under the 'should have been filed' prong of Article 12(4) RPBA 2007.
• “If the board were to admit the first auxiliary request into the proceedings, it would be forced either (1) to examine and decide on subject-matter which has probably not been searched or (2) to remit the case to the examining division in order to enable a search to be performed. The board concurs with the view []  that neither of these procedural options is appropriate and acceptable. If the appellant intended to seek protection for the subject-matter of claim 1 of the present first auxiliary request, it should have presented this request before the examining division, for instance as a further auxiliary request. The appellant had several opportunities to do so because the subject-matter of claim 1 was already objected to - for lack of novelty or lack of inventive step over D1 - in several communications of the examining division.”

EPO T 0403/14 - link

6. Conclusion on the main request

Since claim 1 of the main request does not meet the requirement of clarity of Article 84 EPC 1973, the main request is not allowable.

First auxiliary request - admittance (Article 12(4) RPBA)

7. Pursuant to Article 12(4) RPBA (Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal, OJ EPO 2007, 536), the board has the power to hold inadmissible a request which could have been presented in the first-instance proceedings but was not (see Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO, 8th edition 2016, IV.E.4.3.1 in general and IV.E.4.3.3 b) for ex parte appeal proceedings).

8. Claim 1 according to the first auxiliary request has been amended with respect to claim 1 of the main request by adding several features taken from the description and specific to the fourth embodiment shown in figures 13 to 15.