tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23521891752116482602024-03-13T10:09:19.179+01:00K’s LawExtracts from recently published decisions
of the Boards of Appeal of the EPOorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07992102028406713066noreply@blogger.comBlogger1387125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-29217586350881025862014-01-07T02:01:00.000+01:002014-01-07T21:01:44.750+01:00Farewell<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<i><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7zRDVPE7UXOYXaW4Tsn8xrILXj9alY89HV-03vAULxkbza1m8BEu4ZCHaTtI_hyphenhyphenh4qP86HjMp4bY72CMOfePrXCfHsRUXfHrVKxwrV9WwK5iAuzrOYmbBnym0wAoOF452rODDmzlLmPA/s1600/oliver_hardy___nothing_but_trouble.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7zRDVPE7UXOYXaW4Tsn8xrILXj9alY89HV-03vAULxkbza1m8BEu4ZCHaTtI_hyphenhyphenh4qP86HjMp4bY72CMOfePrXCfHsRUXfHrVKxwrV9WwK5iAuzrOYmbBnym0wAoOF452rODDmzlLmPA/s1600/oliver_hardy___nothing_but_trouble.jpg" height="300" width="400" /></a></i></div>
<i><br />
</i> <br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB">As announced <a href="http://k-slaw.blogspot.fr/2013/12/changes-ahead.html">some time ago</a>, I will become a member of the Boards of appeal in 2014, which means that I cannot be a case law blogger any more.</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><br />
</i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB">I had the intention of continuing the blog for some more weeks, but as it turns out, I have run out of noteworthy decisions, which has never happened since 2009, when this blog took off. I take this as a sign that the time has come to terminate the proceedings.</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><br />
</i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB">I know some colleagues who have the intention of pursuing the work; I hope these projects will be reduced to practice and, if so, I shall be happy to provide links. </span></i><br />
<i><br />
</i> <i><span lang="EN-GB">This blog, however, will go silent. What has been published so far will remain online, as requested by some of you. </span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><br />
</i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB">Let me just thank those of you whose comments have made this blog a more interesting place. Thanks to pat-agonia, Myshkin, MaxDrei, Roufousse T. Fairfly, Manolis, Raoul, George Brock-Nannestad, DrZ, ExaMinus, Rimbaud - to mention just a few dear contributors - as well as to those who preferred to stay anonymous. My thanks also go to Laurent Teyssèdre, the father of EPC case law blogging, whose <a href="http://europeanpatentcaselaw.blogspot.fr/">blog</a> was quite an inspiration to me.</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><br />
</i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB">All the best</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><br />
</i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB">oliver</span></i><br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><i><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKJWRIwxlhmLyri27hKketcSQShDrPZVNlfkvI2ITjZAlGsozHukobaEYGUQ_sYA_ZI_V7OfWCYrdDKHtXLmMY343ytzltfpt6932hzDYhxv0UChambx6aw_8jRN_TBD_2m9GYklHfVMc/s1600/sonsofthedesert1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKJWRIwxlhmLyri27hKketcSQShDrPZVNlfkvI2ITjZAlGsozHukobaEYGUQ_sYA_ZI_V7OfWCYrdDKHtXLmMY343ytzltfpt6932hzDYhxv0UChambx6aw_8jRN_TBD_2m9GYklHfVMc/s1600/sonsofthedesert1.jpg" height="400" width="512" /></a></i></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Board deliberation (in a composition pursuant to A 21(4)(a) EPC)</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
orhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07992102028406713066noreply@blogger.com23tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-2994453233285209242014-01-06T02:01:00.000+01:002014-01-11T11:13:36.337+01:00T 434/12 – New Lines Of Attack<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">In this opposition appeal case, on the second day of the oral proceedings (OPs) before the board the patent proprietor submitted the following request:</span></i></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">“we herewith request adjournment of the OPs scheduled for 17 and 18 September 2013 in view of the new lines of attack brought by the opponents under A 100(c) for the first time during the OPs of 17 September 2013, …”</span></i></div>
</blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">The Board refused to grant the adjournment:</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">[1.3] The appellant-patentee’s request for adjournment of the OPs in view of several “new lines of attack” against claim 6 of the main request […] was refused by the board at the OPs.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">The present <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">inter partes</i> appeal proceedings lie from an interlocutory decision of the Opposition Division (OD) maintaining the patent in amended form on the basis of an auxiliary request which is identical to auxiliary request 8 filed with the patentee’s grounds of appeal. The patentee and four of the five opponents lodged appeals against the first-instance decision. Therefore, the situation of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">reformatio in peius</i> does not arise in relation to the examination by the board of any of the sets of claims on file. Moreover, A 100(c) is within the framework of the present appeal proceedings and all the sets of claims on the basis of which the appellant-patentee has requested maintenance of the patent contain amended claims. Additionally, as is evident from the facts and submissions, the patent as granted contains a multitude of independent claims. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #f79646; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: accent6;">It is undeniable that one of the main duties of the board is to review the first-instance decision as to its merits, but the fact that the OD decided to conduct the OPs on the 13-14 September 2011 in a certain way for reasons of economy and efficiency of the proceedings, and thus decided to focus on one single independent claim (claim 1 for the main request), or one single ground of opposition (novelty for the method claims 6 and 7 of auxiliary request 2) in order to find out whether or not a set of claims failed, does not restrict the framework of the present <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">inter partes</i> appeal proceedings to those claims or those reasons which were specifically discussed at the OPs before the OD.</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Moreover, independent claim 6 of the main request derives from granted claim 31 which was amended in the course of opposition proceedings. Therefore, the board has the power and the duty (A 114(1)) to assess whether or not independent claim 6 of the main request fails pursuant to grounds under A 100(c), in conjunction with A 123(2) and A 76(1), since a patent should not be maintained in amended form on the basis of unallowable amendments. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #f79646; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: accent6;">Maintaining a patent in appeal proceedings on the basis of unallowable amendments introduced during opposition and/or opposition appeal proceedings would be contrary to the spirit and purpose of the EPC (Article 23 RPBA). Thus, a literal interpretation of Article 13(1) RPBA should be avoided in the present case.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Additionally, the appellant-patentee itself cited page 11 of the parent application as filed as the basis for claim 6 of the main request. Therefore, the board must investigate first those cited passages of page 11 before being able to conclude whether or not they represent an allowable basis for the amendments. In doing so the board is not restricted to the reasoning submitted by the parties in writing before the OPs. The OPs may serve to clarify some additional aspects related to the arguments submitted in writing in relation to A 123(2) and A 76(1). This preserves the parties’ right to be heard (A 113(1)). Under the circumstances depicted above, artificially restricting the discussion about the allowability of amendments would have deprived the OPs of their meaning, and adjourning the OPs would have made the proceedings interminable. After all, the filing date of the application from which the patent in suit derives is 5 December 1991.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">The fact that the appellants-opponents presented orally a more detailed reasoning in relation to A 123(2) and A 76(1) than their reasoning in writing can be easily explained by the high number of independent claims in the main request and the fact that the OD focused only on claim 1, ignoring the other claims.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #f79646; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: accent6;">The so-called “new lines of attack” correspond to the necessary discussion of added matter which directly arises when undertaking a comparison between the wording of independent claim 6 of the main request and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">inter alia</i> the text on page 11 of the parent application as filed, cited by the appellant-patentee as being its allowable basis under A 76(1). Therefore, the board is convinced that it was to be expected that in the course of the OPs before the board the features and expressions appearing on page 11 of the parent application as filed would have to be compared with the expressions in independent claim 6 of the main request, and thus the appellant-patentee should have been prepared accordingly.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">However, the board does not consider that the appellant-patentee has committed an abuse of proceedings by filing the auxiliary requests in the course of the OPs before the board. The question which in fact arises in this <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">inter partes</i> appeal case relates to an evaluation of the fairness of the proceedings. The fact that there was a detailed discussion during the OPs before the board in relation to claim 6 of the main request was taken into account when assessing whether the filing of auxiliary requests was justified in the course of the OPs.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">In the end the patent was revoked.</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">Should you wish to download the whole decision, click <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t120434eu1.pdf">here</a>.</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">The file wrapper can be found <a href="https://register.epo.org/espacenet/application?number=EP97105021">here</a>.</span></i></div>
orhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07992102028406713066noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-69965278871780659792014-01-03T02:01:00.000+01:002014-01-11T11:13:23.843+01:00T 2165/10 – In The Archives<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">This is an appeal against the decision of an Opposition Division (OD) to reject an opposition.</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">The crucial matter was whether late-filed evidence relating to an alleged prior use should be admitted:</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">[1.1] The documents E1-E10, which relate to an alleged public prior use, were filed by the [opponent] with its letter of 8 April 2010, well after expiry of the nine month opposition period ending 5 December 2008. By applying the criteria of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">prima facie</i> relevance, they were not admitted in the proceedings by the OD […].</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">[1.2] <span style="color: #ff6600;">The Board shares the OD’s conclusion that E1-E10 were filed late without any good reason for doing so.</span> There was indeed no change in the file during the opposition proceedings, such as a patent proprietor’s new request, which could have justified the late filing. Furthermore, the Board considers that the OD applied the principle of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">prima facie</i> relevance correctly in a reasonable manner when exercising its discretional power (<a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/g930007ex1.pdf">G 7/93</a> [2.6]). Consequently, the Board does not see any reason to overturn that decision.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">[1.3] <span style="color: #ff6600;">The reasons mentioned by the [opponent] for the late submission of E1-E10 are that the public prior use took place <u>more than 20 years ago in a foreign country</u>. Since the legal time limit for keeping documents had long elapsed, many of the relevant <u>documents had been destroyed</u>. </span>This made it a huge burden to retrieve the necessary pieces of evidence, so that the [opponent] could only file them as complete as possible after the opposition time limit. With respect to its letter dated 24 April 2008 sent to the respondent, in which it refers to the public prior use, the [opponent] argues that the documents in its possession at that time were considered <u>not enough to constitute a complete chain of evidence</u>, so that it did not wish to provide it in that incomplete form to the OD.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #ff6600; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">The Board, however, shares the respondent’s view that the [opponent] should have included an indication of the alleged public prior use in its notice of opposition and indicated/filed all evidence in its possession at that time,</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"> i.e. the drawings and pictures as annexed to its letter to the respondent dated 24 April 2008. Any further evidence, like the commercial documentation, could have been indicated to be filed later, indicating the difficulties in retrieving such documents in the archives, abroad and/or with third parties.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">[1.4] The Board is of the opinion that the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">prima facie</i> relevance test was also exercised correctly in that the OD considered that the evidence E1-E10 does not disclose a number of the claimed features (novelty) and does not deal with the problem of the contested patent of avoiding jamming of the overwrapping machine <u>when pairing the packets with the respective sheets of packing material</u> […]. Since there is a document (D4) that does relate to this problem, the Board can also not find fault in the OD’s reasoning to find the prior use less relevant as starting point. It also dealt with the relevance of the prior use as a teaching which could possibly lead the skilled person to the invention […] and found it also insufficient in that respect.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Thus, the OD dealt with all aspects of relevance of the prior use when not admitting it. It is, therefore, not part of the opposition proceedings and, as a consequence, not as such part of the appeal proceedings (A 114(2)).</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">[1.5] <span style="color: #ff6600;">The late filing of the evidence relating to the alleged public prior use could have been “repaired” on appeal if the OD had not applied its discretion correctly. This is, however, not the case here as discussed above.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">[1.6] The [opponent] accepts in the appeal proceedings that the guide in the alleged public prior use is located <u>downstream</u>, i.e. not upstream, from the cross station and now argues that this is not a “substantial” difference which could justify an inventive step. The skilled person using his common general knowledge would immediately think of positioning the guide on the other side if needed. It cites </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><a href="http://archive.epo.org/epo/pubs/oj1981/p431_500.pdf">T 1/81</a></span>, which establishes that inverting process steps cannot support inventive step and implies that a geometrical inversion can neither justify this. Similarly, it cites </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><a href="http://archive.epo.org/epo/pubs/oj1982/p419_446.pdf">T 39/82</a></span>, </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t840142ex1.pdf">T 142/84</a></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">, <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t900332du1.pdf">T 332/90</a>, <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t910485du1.pdf">T 485/91</a> and <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t970025du1.pdf">T 25/97</a> for supporting that a new application of a known measure cannot lead to an inventive step if the problem does not change.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">The above cannot lead to the Board to exceptionally admit the evidence relating to the alleged public prior use of its own motion in the appeal proceedings.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">In assessing whether it qualifies as closest prior art, also the function of the guide has to be taken into account. In the alleged public prior use machine it has no function whatsoever with respect to the transparent packing material nor to guide the cigarette packs to that packing material. It guides the wrapped packs to the revolver 08.01, which is a different problem. Even if the above mentioned case law would establish the principles attributed to it by the [opponent], the present alleged public prior use would <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">prima facie</i> <u>not</u> fulfil them.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">The evidence related to the alleged public prior use is therefore not admitted in the appeal proceedings.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">A witness hearing on this matter is thus also not necessary.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">Should you wish to download the whole decision, click <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t102165eu1.pdf">here</a>.</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">The file wrapper can be found <a href="https://register.epo.org/espacenet/application?number=EP06112759">here</a>.</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
</div>
orhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07992102028406713066noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-31190456053711710572014-01-02T02:01:00.000+01:002014-01-09T01:58:27.689+01:00T 59/08 – More On Sufficiency<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">This is a revocation appeal.</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">The independent claims on file read:</span></i></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">1. A multimodal polyethylene composition for pipes, which multimodal polyethylene has a density of 0.930-0.965 g/cm<sup><span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">3</span></sup> and an MFR5 of 0.2-1.2 g/10 min, characterised in that the multimodal polyethylene has an M<sub><span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">n</span></sub> of 8000-15000, an M<sub><span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">w</span></sub> of 180-330 x 10<sup><span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">3</span></sup>, and an M<sub><span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">w</span></sub>/M<sub><span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">n</span></sub> of 20-35, said multimodal polyethylene comprising a low molecular weight (LMW) ethylene homopolymer fraction and a high molecular weight (HMW) ethylene copolymer fraction, said HMW fraction having a lower molecular weight limit of 3500, and a weight ratio of the LMW fraction to the HMW fraction of (35-55) : (65-45).</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">12. A pipe characterised in that it is a pressure pipe comprising the multimodal polymer composition according to any one of the preceding claims, which pipe withstands a pressure of 8.0 MPa gauge during 50 years at 20°C (MRS8.0).</span></i></div>
</blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">[2] The question to be answered when assessing sufficiency of disclosure is whether the invention as defined in the claims can be performed by a person skilled in the art throughout the whole area(s) claimed without undue burden, taking into account the information given in the patent in suit and using common general knowledge.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">[2.1] The invention of which the sufficiency of disclosure has to be judged is the object defined in present claim 1 by the combination of the following features:</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">(i) a multimodal polyethylene composition suitable for pipes,</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">the multimodal polyethylene having</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">(ii) a density of 0.930-0.965 g/cm<sup><span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">3</span></sup>,</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">(iii) a MFR5 of 0.2-1.2 g/10 min,</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">(iv) a M<sub><span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">n</span></sub> of 8000-15000, a M<sub><span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">w</span></sub> of 180?330 x 10<sup><span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">3</span></sup> and a M<sub><span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">w</span></sub>/M<sub><span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">n</span></sub> of 20-35,</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">and comprising</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">(v) a low molecular weight (LMW) ethylene homopolymer fraction and a high molecular weight (HMW) ethylene copolymer fraction in a weight ratio of the LMW fraction to the HMW fraction of (35-55) : (65-45)</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">(vi) said HMW ethylene copolymer fraction having a lower molecular weight limit of 3500.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">[2.2] The contested decision nor the parties on appeal addressed the question whether the present patent specification disclosed a technical concept fit for generalisation and whether it made available to the skilled person, with his common general knowledge, compositions suitable for pipes meeting the combination of parameters defined in claim 1, as well as the pipes according to claim 12. The questions addressed were rather which meaning should be attributed to the feature “lower limit of the high molecular weight (HMW) ethylene copolymer fraction” and whether, in the absence of any mention in the patent with respect to the measurement methods for determining M<sub><span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">n</span></sub>, M<sub><span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">w</span></sub> and the lower limit of the high molecular weight (HMW) ethylene copolymer fraction, the skilled person would know which measurement method was to be employed.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">[2.3] Following the normal rule of claim construction according to which terms used in a claim should be given their ordinary meaning in the context of the claim in which they appear, the lower molecular weight limit of the HMW ethylene copolymer fraction defined in claim 1 designates the lowest molecular weight of any of the molecules of the HMW fraction. This view is supported by the statement provided in the specification on page 3, lines 9-12 and was not disputed any longer during the oral proceedings.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">[2.4] In the absence in the claim of any indication of a method for determining M<sub><span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">n</span></sub>, M<sub><span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">w</span></sub> and the lower limit of the high molecular weight (HMW) ethylene copolymer fraction, the claim has to be read as allowing any method of measurement, including any setting, that can be said to be standard in the art concerned; in other words, any ordinary method within the context of the present claim. In this respect, the parties do not dispute that different methods (for example GPC), including different settings, would be available to determine values for those parameters, nor that the choice of the measurement method for determining said parameters has an influence on the values obtained.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">[2.5] The notions of “true value” and closeness to that “true value” in relation to M<sub><span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">w</span></sub> and M<sub><span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">n</span></sub> parameters, to which the [patent proprietor] referred, are however not only vague, but also not reflected by the information provided in the patent in suit. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #ff6600; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">If a patent proprietor wishes to argue that a parameter range in a claim should be read in a special way or needs to be measured in a particular manner because several possibilities are available, then for that argument to be accepted it is necessary to limit the claim to this method of measurement by way of amendment, provided that this can be done meeting the requirements of A 123(2). It is not enough to argue that the claim should be read in a particular way when the wording of the claim does not require this. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">For lack of information to that effect, it is not apparent that the skilled person would try to determine the “true value” of M<sub><span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">w</span></sub> and M<sub><span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">n</span></sub>, as it is at least equally credible that he would choose any standard method meeting his needs in the context of the technical circumstances of the case, i.e. also taking into account the convenience and reproducibility of that method.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">[2.6] <span style="color: #ff6600;">Therefore, the present claims should be read as to encompass any composition or pipe that meets the defined values of M<sub><span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">w</span></sub>, M<sub><span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">n</span></sub> and “lower limit of the high molecular weight (HMW) ethylene copolymer fraction” using any method that can be considered to be standard in the art in the technical context of the present claims as the method of measurement for those parameters.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">[2.7] <span style="color: #ff6600;">Such a reading of the claim may on the one hand result in a larger number of compositions or pipes meeting the claimed values than when one specific method were used, and therefore in less difficulty to obtain compositions or pipes as defined by the claims, i.e. in less stringent requirements for assessing sufficiency of disclosure of the claimed combination of features. In that case it may on the other hand require stronger arguments in favour of novelty and inventive step, in particular if the claimed values were held to distinguish the claimed subject-matter from the prior art and to be considered essential for providing a technical effect vis-à-vis the prior art.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">[3] <span style="color: #ff6600;">The [opponents’] argument that the conventional methods for determining M<sub><span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">w</span></sub> and M<sub><span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">n</span></sub> led to different values out of which a lack of guidance resulted for the skilled person wishing to obtain the result defined in the patent specification […], namely to obtain a pressure pipe with a desired combination of good processability and good strength, cannot be accepted as an argument pertaining to sufficiency of disclosure of the invention, as those results or effects are not features of the present claims. This follows from the consideration that - in accordance with R 43(1) – the invention in the European patent application is defined by the subject-matter of a claim, i.e. the specific combination of features present in the claim, as is reminded in opinion <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/g980002ex1.pdf">G 2/98</a> [2] of the Enlarged Board of Appeal. Whether the result defined in the present patent specification […], is achieved or not, may, however, become relevant under the requirement of inventive step, for assessing the technical problem which can be held to be successfully solved by the combination of features claimed.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">[4] The uncertainty about which method the skilled person would select to determine M<sub><span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">n</span></sub>, M<sub><span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">w</span></sub> and the lower limit of the high molecular weight (HMW) ethylene copolymer fraction, which was the central issue addressed by the parties both in opposition and in appeal proceedings, is in the present case not adequate to make a case against sufficiency of disclosure. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #ff6600; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">The argument that the choice of the measurement method for determining M<sub><span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">n</span></sub>, M<sub><span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">w</span></sub> and the lower limit of the high molecular weight (HMW) ethylene copolymer fraction had an influence on the values obtained and that therefore the skilled person would not know whether he had obtained something falling within the ambit of the claims – as it was argued by the [opponents] as well as in the decision under appeal – boils down to the argument that the boundaries of the claims are not clearly defined, which is a matter of A 84, not sufficiency of disclosure. Such an objection under A 84 cannot be successful as it would not arise out of any amendment made in opposition or appeal proceedings.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">[5] For assessing the requirement for sufficiency of disclosure the question should be answered whether the skilled person, following the teaching provided in the patent specification […], and also taking into account his general knowledge, would be able to obtain without undue burden multimodal polyethylene compositions meeting all criteria defined in claim 1 of the patent in suit […] and the pipe according to claim 12.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">[5.1] In this respect, points raised before the opposition division […], which in particular relate to the process conditions that are needed to obtain the combination of technical features defined in the claims, and which appear to be essential to assess the sufficiency of the disclosure, should also be considered.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">[5.2] However, none of those issues was decided by Opposition Division, nor argued by the parties before the Board.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">[6] Under those circumstances, as the essential issues to be addressed in respect of sufficiency of disclosure have not been dealt with in the contested decision, the Board exercises its discretion under A 111(1) to remit the case to the first instance for further prosecution.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">Should you wish to download the whole decision, click <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t080059eu1.pdf">here</a>.</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">The file wrapper can be found <a href="https://register.epo.org/espacenet/application?number=EP99935230">here</a>.</span></i></div>
orhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07992102028406713066noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-59917575532141728682014-01-01T02:01:00.000+01:002014-01-07T21:13:38.049+01:00T 163/13 – Let’s Be Reasonable<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">As you know, the EPO has quite strict rules regarding corrections. In particular, corrections will not be allowed unless it is immediately evident to the skilled person that an error has occurred and how it should be corrected. Sometimes, as in the present case, opponents push this reasoning too far.</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">The patent proprietor wished to amend its claims by introducing a temperature (72°F) which it said was disclosed in paragraph [0035] of the patent. However, this paragraph only contained a reference to a value 72EF:</span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKPMK9rhTO7_Sh8WzMRisQ-ycssr7bBn91Baa9aFyjIRqbekzHCaxqdLKnsncewh44KwpsmjaIYseY_VT_wHB6nndFAvonT1eHRvVZCICRULMT6aR2DYrvD2CZEgLexmSR8HlCLR212XE/s1600/35.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKPMK9rhTO7_Sh8WzMRisQ-ycssr7bBn91Baa9aFyjIRqbekzHCaxqdLKnsncewh44KwpsmjaIYseY_VT_wHB6nndFAvonT1eHRvVZCICRULMT6aR2DYrvD2CZEgLexmSR8HlCLR212XE/s320/35.png" height="284" width="320" /></a></div>
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">[1.2.2] [The opponent] admits that a skilled reader will realise that “72EF” in paragraph [0035] of the description is an obvious error, but contests that “72°F (22.2°C)” now introduced in claim 1 of auxiliary request 1 is the only possible correction. It considers that instead of the temperature the correction could for instance concern the pressure or any other parameter the skilled person could think of in the technical field of testing moisture ingress of containers. Therefore, the correction would not be admissible as it clearly contravenes Rule 139 and Article 123(2) EPC.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #ff6600; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">The Board, however, shares [the patent proprietor’s] view that the only possible correction having a technical meaning in the present context is the temperature as it is an essential parameter for such a test.</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"> This appears clearly for instance from D10, 1st page, top of right-hand column […]. Consequently, the skilled person will immediately consider that “F” means “Fahrenheit” and make the correction accordingly. Hence, the correction complies with R 139 and A 123(2).</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">Should you wish to download the whole decision, click <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t130163eu1.pdf">here</a>.</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">The file wrapper can be found <a href="https://register.epo.org/espacenet/application?number=EP03773225">here</a>.</span></i></div>
orhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07992102028406713066noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-80945377036215663422013-12-31T02:01:00.000+01:002014-01-06T22:29:14.958+01:00T 1937/10 – Just A Question Of Strength<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">This decision – on an appeal against the rejection of an opposition as inadmissible – reminds us that one has to distinguish between inadmissibility and unallowability. </span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">[1.1] The notice of opposition is founded on the sole objection of lack of novelty against claim 1 of the contested patent, relying only on an alleged public prior use (D1 to D3) and a prior disclosure of that same device (D1, D3, D4). The inadmissibility of the opposition is based on the ground of insufficient substantiation, in particular with regard to the question of <u>what</u> has been actually disclosed […].</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">[1.2] The relevant requirements concerning substantiation of the opposition are set out in R 76(2)(c), according to which the notice of opposition shall contain a statement of the <u>extent</u> to which the European patent is opposed and of the <u>grounds</u> on which the opposition is based, as well as an indication of the <u>facts and evidence</u> presented in support of these grounds.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">[1.3] It is clear from the EPO Form 2300 dated 28 November 2007 filed by the [opponent] that the opposition was filed against the patent as a whole (extent) and based on the grounds of A 100(a), namely lack of novelty and lack of inventive step (grounds). This is further confirmed by the notice of opposition itself. The first two conditions of R 76(2)(c) are therefore clearly fulfilled.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">[1.4] With respect to the last condition (facts and evidence), according to the established case law the notice of opposition must indicate the “when”, “what” and under “what circumstances”, in particular “to whom”, the alleged public prior use was made available (<a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t940522ex1.html">T 522/94</a> [headnote IV, 10, 12, 20 to 25]; <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t870328ep1.html">T 328/87</a> [3.3]).</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">[1.5] In the present case, the [opponent] cited documents D1 to D5 with its notice of opposition. D5 was merely cited for dependent claims, it is therefore not relevant for this decision. It indicated that a relevant device, as in D1, was made public to the attendees of a public seminar, i.e. to members of the public not bound by secrecy, held in Kemi, Finland on 23-34 March 1995 (<u>circumstances</u> and <u>when</u>). It filed D2 in this respect, constituted of a cover page, a programme page and a one page description of an AQS300 device with a picture and a drawing of this device.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">The [opponent] argued in its notice of opposition that D1 discloses all the features of claim 1 except the features of the characterising portion. The latter features are alleged to be comprised in the device shown at the said seminar (<u>what</u>). D2 and D3 were filed as evidence to support this fact.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">The same device was the subject of a prior disclosure in the article D4, showing the same picture as in D2. The photos D3 were filed as supporting evidence for this device as well.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">In the light of these “what”, “when” and “what circumstances”, the [opponent] concluded that novelty of the subject-matter of claim 1 was not given.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">[1.6] As indicated in <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t070597eu1.pdf">T 597/07</a> [2.5] of the reasons, according to the established case law, “it is not required for an opposition to be admissible that the arguments brought in support are <u>conclusive</u> or that the opponent’s statements are <u>true</u>. What is required is that the patentee and the opposition division are put in a position of understanding clearly the nature of the objections and the evidence and arguments in support”.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">It is further referred, for instance, to T 1022/99 [2.2] of the reasons, indicating that the facts - what, when, what circumstances of the alleged public prior use - must be indicated within the opposition period, while the evidence can be brought later in the proceedings as long as it is indicated.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t991022fu1.pdf</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">[1.7] <span style="color: #ff6600;">Therefore, a distinction must be made between examining admissibility of the opposition and its substantive merit (see Case Law, 7<sup>th</sup> edition 2013, <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/caselaw/2013/e/clr_iv_d_3_3_3.htm">chapter IV.D.3.3.3</a>).</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #ff6600; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">This distinction, contrary to the [patent proprietor’s] opinion, was not made in the impugned decision which appears to be focused only on assessing whether the [opponent’s] case of alleged prior use was conclusive and convincing.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">[1.8] The [patent proprietor] holds the view that </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t070597eu1.pdf">T 597/07</a></span> requires that the <u>nature of the evidence</u> is clearly understandable at the time when the opposition is filed and considers this element to be missing in the present case.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">It argues that it is not unambiguously established that D2 and D3 are prior art documents. In particular, it is not clear whether page 3 of D2 actually belongs to D2 itself as there is no direct link between said page 3 and the first two pages (cover and programme of the seminar). With respect to D3, the pictures might have been taken on any device at any time and their link to the other documents D1, D2 or D4 merely relies on [opponent’s] allegations.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Even though the pictures look similar, the link between D2 and D4 is also missing and cannot be unambiguously established. Similarly, the link between D1 and D4 is unclear as there is no mention in D1 of the machine AQS300 of D4.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">In fact, the notice of opposition merely alleges that D1 to D4 refer to the same device, without giving any evidence, however, how these documents are actually interrelated. The opposition relies on allegations without even indicating how these allegations could be proven.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Consequently, further investigations would be needed for the [patent proprietor] or the opposition division to clarify and understand the nature of evidence. That makes the opposition inadmissible.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">[1.9] The Board cannot share the [patent proprietor’s] view for the reasons given during the oral proceedings and recited below.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">The decision </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t070597eu1.pdf">T 597/07</a></span> does not refer to the “nature of evidence” but rather to the evidence as such. The sentence quoted under point [1.6] above is to be understood as that the patentee and the opposition division are put in a position of understanding clearly:</span></div>
<ul>
<li><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">the nature of the objections and</span></li>
<li><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">the evidence and</span></li>
<li><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">arguments</span></li>
</ul>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">in support, i.e. meaning that the “nature” only relates to the objections, not to the evidence itself as argued by the [patent proprietor].</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Furthermore, D1 (its translation D1a), D2, D3 and D4 (for its introductory part that has been translated and its pictures) are understandable documents, D1 and D4 being indisputable prior art documents as admitted by the [patent proprietor]. What the evidence is alleged to be proving is explained by the [opponent] in the notice of opposition (see also point [1.5] above), in particular with respect to the sole alleged distinguishing feature of the characterising part of claim 1 over D1. This characterising part reads as follows:</span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">“at least some of said upper log-receiving surfaces (16) or of said leading edge regions (18) comprise a plurality of projections projecting therefrom, said projections comprising an outermost contact region for contacting logs being transferred between said spaced locations, said contact regions being configured as a peak”</span></div>
</blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">In the notice of opposition the [opponent] argued that this feature could be seen in the picture contained in D2, which was further alleged to be clarified by the photos of D3, alleged to have been taken on the same device as shown in D2. The same argument was brought forward regarding the identical picture in D4, relating to the allegedly same installation as discussed at the seminar (D2). The relationship between these documents is therefore sufficiently discussed.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">When reading the notice of opposition, the nature of the objections (lack of novelty), the evidence (D1 to D4) and the arguments (interrelation between D1-D4) in support, i.e. the case the opponent tries to make, is therefore clearly understandable for the Board.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Whether the device of D1 was actually the same as presented at the seminar (D2) or was actually the same as discussed in D4, i.e. whether the [opponent’s] statements in the notice of opposition are proven or not, does not relate to the admissibility of the opposition but rather to its substantive merit. The same applies to the question whether D2 is the complete document and whether the photos of D3 relate to the device of D2 or D4 as it was alleged.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #ff6600; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">An opposition can indeed be found admissible on the basis of the statements, documents or copies thereof indicated in/filed with the notice of opposition which, later in the opposition proceedings, may eventually be considered incomplete, insufficient or simply wrong.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #ff6600; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">This, however, does not put the admissibility of the opposition into question. It only relates to the strength of the case.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #ff6600; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Doubting whether documents cited in the notice of opposition are actually what they are alleged to be, as in the present case by the [patent proprietor] and the impugned decision, is an issue of merit of the opponent’s case, not of its admissibility.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">[1.10] In view of the above, the Board considers that the notice of opposition meets the requirements of R 76(2)(c). Consequently, the opposition is admissible.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">The Board then remitted the case for further prosecution.</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">Should you wish to download the whole decision, click <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t101937eu1.pdf">here</a>.</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">The file wrapper can be found <a href="https://register.epo.org/espacenet/application?number=EP99942671">here</a>.</span></i></div>
orhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07992102028406713066noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-45582166820591800972013-12-30T02:01:00.000+01:002014-01-05T21:37:08.076+01:00T 2041/09 – Grain Sizes<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: grey; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">Claim 1 on file read :</span></i></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Fireproof product made of a mix of additives, at least one binder and an admixture (</span></i><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Zusatz<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">), characterised in that the admixture consists in synthetic TiO<sub>2</sub>-containing particulate materials having an <u>average grain size d50 from 0.2 to 2000 µm</u>. <span style="color: grey; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">(my emphasis)</span></i></span></div>
</blockquote>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: grey; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">*** Translation of <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t092041du1.pdf">the German original</a> ***</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">[3.1] In the impugned decision the Examining Division (ED) established that the subject-matter of the then pending claims 1 to 6 was not novel over the disclosure of documents D1 and D2.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">[3.1.1] Documents D1 and D2 disclose TiO<sub>2</sub>-containing additives consisting of residues of the TiO<sub>2</sub> production, a binder (e.g. a cement) and one or several components selected from <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">inter alia</i> SiO<sub>2</sub> </span>and <span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Al<sub>2</sub>O<sub>3</sub></span> […]. The <span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">TiO<sub>2</sub>-containing additives are powder mixtures having a grain size of 50 to 5000 µm […]. However, documents D1 and D2 do not disclose any grain size <u>distribution</u>. <span style="color: #ff6600;">Particles having a grain size of 50 to 5000 µm do not necessarily have an <u>average</u> grain size for <u>0.2 to 2000 µm</u> because they could, e.g. consist of particles > 2000 µm only.</span> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">[3.1.2] Thus documents D1 and D2 do not disclose TiO<sub>2</sub>-containing particulate materials having an average grain size from 0.2 to 2000 µm, so that these documents do not destroy the novelty of the subject-matter of claim 1.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">[3.2] In the course of the examining proceedings there were additional objections of lack of novelty of the subject-matter of the then pending claims over documents D3 and D4.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">[3.2.1] Document D3 discloses TiO<sub>2</sub>-containing additives consisting of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">inter alia</i> residues of TiO<sub>2</sub>-pigment production and Fe<sub>2</sub>O<sub>3</sub>. The product does have a grain size of 100% <2 mm (i.e. necessarily an average grain size of up to 2000 µm) </span>[…]<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">, but it does <u>not</u> contain <u>any binder</u>.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">[3.2.2] Document D4 discloses a fireproof material containing <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">inter alia </i>Al<sub>2</sub>O<sub>3</sub>, SiO<sub>2</sub>, FeO, TiO<sub>2</sub>, and boric acid </span>[…]<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">. This document discloses all the components of the fireproof product according to claim 1 of the application under consideration, but it does <u>not</u> disclose <u>any grain size</u> for the products. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">[3.2.3] Thus documents D3 and D4 do not disclose all the features of claim 1, so that they do not destroy the novelty of the subject-matter of claim 1.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">[3.3] To sum up, the feature according to which the average grain size of the synthetic TiO<sub>2</sub>-containing particulate materials is between 0.2 to 2000 µm, as required by claim 1, cannot be directly and unambiguously derived from any of documents D1, D2, and D4, so that these documents do not destroy the novelty of the subject-matter of claim 1. Document D3 does not disclose that the product contains a binder, so that this document does not destroy the novelty of the claimed subject-matter either. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">[3.4] <span style="color: #ff6600;">The statement of the ED according to which there is no technical effect obtained over the whole claimed range is not relevant for the assessment of novelty, because novelty and inventive step are two distinct patentability requirements. A technical effect that occurs in a claimed range does not establish the novelty of a numerical range that is novel in itself but only confirms the novelty of this claimed numerical range, which has already been established. The question of whether there is a technical effect or not, however, remains to be answered in the context of inventive step (see <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t051233eu1.pdf">T 1233/05</a> [4.4]; <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t070230eu1.pdf">T 230/07</a> [4.1.6])</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">[3.4] Thus, for the above reasons the Board comes to the conclusion that the subject-matter of claim 1 is novel over documents D1 to D4.</span><span style="color: #548dd4; mso-themecolor: text2; mso-themetint: 153;"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: grey; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">The Board then remitted the case for further prosecution.</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: grey; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">Should you wish to download the whole decision (in German), click <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t092041du1.pdf">here</a>.</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: grey; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">The file wrapper can be found <a href="https://register.epo.org/espacenet/application?number=EP00115192">here</a>.</span></i></div>
orhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07992102028406713066noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-53746112556372749492013-12-27T02:01:00.000+01:002014-01-02T20:49:14.760+01:00J 14/12 – Debit (Dis)order<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">This decision deals with a request for the reimbursement of certain fees for a divisional application.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">On filing the divisional application on EPO Form 1001E, no mode of payment was specified under point 42 “Payment” of that form. An “Internal fee calculation sheet”, which is automatically generated by default by the online filing system using the data entered in EPO Form 1001E, was attached to the form in which the filing fee, the fee for a European search and the renewal fees for the 3rd to 10th years were listed by the applicant.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">On October 20, 2010, the EPO received the following request:<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgIjgV7wb7LBBcMfZ5AEowoNpVsYbrsgNey6MYkC1k9VSHdM15mZW3Q4oShP16LxwYO1uXlsbCQvU1yjxOMcIfO94DZv4n9jJQt6lkIyUQN0OwNIXjGjBJCClgeomGW-uHf17Xndy1rB0/s1600/Payment.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="68" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgIjgV7wb7LBBcMfZ5AEowoNpVsYbrsgNey6MYkC1k9VSHdM15mZW3Q4oShP16LxwYO1uXlsbCQvU1yjxOMcIfO94DZv4n9jJQt6lkIyUQN0OwNIXjGjBJCClgeomGW-uHf17Xndy1rB0/s640/Payment.jpg" width="512" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">On the basis of this request the Receiving Section (RS) gave the instruction to debit the filing fee and the search fee. No renewal fees for the 3<sup>rd</sup> to 12<sup>th</sup> years were paid by the applicant, or debited from the representative’s account on the basis of his request of 20 October 2010, within four months after the filing date.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">After having been informed accordingly by the EPO, the applicant’s representative, on March 14, 2011, paid the renewal fees for the 3<sup>rd</sup> to 12<sup>th</sup> years and the additional fees of 50% relating to all of those renewal fees. Together with these fees, the filing fee and the search fee were paid a second time; this second payment was later refunded by the EPO.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">With a letter dated March 18, 2011, the appellant requested, as a main request, that the additional fees for the 3<sup>rd</sup> to 12<sup>th</sup> years be refunded, and, as an auxiliary request, that the additional fees relating to the renewal fees for the 3<sup>rd</sup> to 10<sup>th</sup> years be refunded. It took the view that the respective renewal fees for the 3<sup>rd</sup> to 12<sup>th</sup> years were paid in time. After having realized the omission in EPO form 1001E, the appellant, with its letter of 20 October 2010, had requested that the fees which fell due in relation to the filing of the divisional application be debited. This authorization constituted a timely payment of all fees listed on the “Internal fee calculation sheet” of the EPO, including the fees for the 3<sup>rd</sup> to 10<sup>th</sup> years. The same applied for the 11<sup>th</sup> to 12<sup>th</sup> years following decisions <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t830170ex1.pdf">T 170/83</a> [6], and <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t820152ep1.html">T 152/82</a> [8-9].<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">The RS rejected both the main and the auxiliary request.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">The Board partially allowed the appeal:<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[2] Under A 86(1), first and second sentences, renewal fees for the European patent application shall be paid to the EPO in accordance with the Implementing Regulations. These fees shall be due in respect of the third year and each subsequent year, calculated from the date of filing of the application. R 51(3), first sentence, provides that renewal fees already due in respect of an earlier application at the date on which a divisional application is filed shall also be paid for the divisional application and shall be due on its filing. On 1 October 2010, the filing date of the divisional application, renewal fees for the earlier application with the filing date of 2 September 1999 had fallen due for the 3<sup>rd</sup> to 12<sup>th</sup> years (2000 - 2011).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[3] These fees and any renewal fee due within four months of filing the divisional application may be paid within that period without an additional fee (R 51(3), second sentence). As R 51(2) also provides, in case a renewal fee is not paid in due time, the fee may still be paid within six months of the due date, provided that an additional fee is also paid within that period. Consequently, payment of the renewal fees that fell due for the present divisional application could be made until 1 February 2011 without an additional fee and until 1 April 2011 with an additional fee of 50% of the belated renewal fee (Article 2(1) Rules relating to Fees of 20 October 1977 as adopted by the decision of the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organization of 7 December 2006 and as[last]amended by the decision of the Administrative Council of 9 December 2008, <a href="http://archive.epo.org/epo/pubs/oj009/02_09/02_sup9.pdf">Supplement to OJ EPO 2/2009</a> (RFees) and Schedule of fees and expenses of the EPO (applicable as from 1 April 2010), 1 A.5, see <a href="http://archive.epo.org/epo/pubs/oj010/03_10/03_sup0.pdf">Supplement 1 to OJ EPO 3/2010</a>).</span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[4] On 20 October 2010 the applicant’s representative wrote a letter to the EPO which included the following wording:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span lang="EN-GB">“It is kindly asked to debit the fees which fell due for payment with the filing of the above-mentioned divisional application from deposit account No. 28000610.”</span></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[5] This mode of payment is not provided for in Article 5(1) RFees 2008.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[6] Under Article 5(2) RFees 2008 the President of the EPO may allow other methods of paying fees than those set out in paragraph 1. In the Arrangements for deposit accounts (ADA) and their annexes (valid as from 1 April 2009), <a href="http://archive.epo.org/epo/pubs/oj009/03_09/03_sup9.pdf">Supplement to OJ EPO 3/2009</a>, the President of the EPO made available debiting procedures in respect of fees (pt 6.1 ADA). Debiting occurs in principle on the basis of a debit order signed by the account holder and may be a debit order for individual fees that may be filed on paper, preferably on EPO form 1010 (pt. 6.2 ADA). The debit order must be clear, unambiguous and unconditional. It must contain the particulars necessary to identify the purpose of the payment, including the amount of each fee or expense concerned, and must indicate the number of the account which is to be debited. Provided there are sufficient funds in the deposit account to cover the total fee payments indicated for the application referred to in the order or, in the case of an order containing a list of applications for each application referred to, this date is considered to be the date on which payment is made (pt 6.3 ADA).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[7] <span style="color: #ff6600;">When read in conjunction with the “Internal fee calculation sheet”, the debit order received on 21 October 2010, in which it was asked to debit the fees which fell due for an explicitly mentioned divisional application, was clear, unambiguous and unconditional as regards the 3<sup>rd</sup> to 10<sup>th</sup> renewal fees. The debit order also indicated the number of the account which was to be debited. In the Board’s judgment, in the case at hand, the purpose and amount of each of these fees were clearly derivable from the “Internal fee calculation sheet”, including the renewal fees for the 3rd to 10th years. By debiting the filing fee and the fee for a European search the EPO showed that it heeded the debit order in combination with the “Internal fee calculation sheet”, filed as an attachment to the application, irrespective of whether it was obliged to do so or whether the “Internal fee calculation sheet” was uploaded to the electronic file. Consequently, 21 October 2010 is to be considered as the date on which the payment for the renewal fees for the 3<sup>rd</sup> to 10<sup>th</sup> year was made and, in relation to these years, no additional fee fell due. Payments of fees made without a legal basis are to be reimbursed.</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[8] <span style="color: #ff6600;">As to the renewal fees for the 11<sup>th</sup> and 12<sup>th</sup> years, the purpose and the amount of each of these fees were neither stated in the debit order nor were they contained in the “Internal fee calculation sheet”. As a consequence, the conditions for a valid debit order set out in the ADA as mentioned above were not fulfilled. A valid payment was effected on 14 March 2011 only, i.e. within the six-month time-limit provided for in R 51(3). Consequently, in respect of the renewal fees for the 11<sup>th</sup> and 12<sup>th</sup> years, the additional fees fell due and cannot be reimbursed.</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[9] No different conclusion can be drawn from the decisions of the Board of Appeal in cases <span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey;"><a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t830170ex1.pdf">T 170/83</a><i> </i></span> or <span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey;"><a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t820152ep1.html">T 152/82</a></span>. Decision <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t830170ex1.pdf">T 170/83</a> dealt with a case in which the purpose (payment of the opposition fee) was clear. The same applies in relation to decision <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t820152ep1.html">T 152/82</a> in which the purpose of the payment (appeal fee) was explicitly indicated.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[10] Consequently, the appellant’s main request is not allowable, but the auxiliary request can be allowed.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[11] The conditions for reimbursement of the appeal fee are not met in the present case. Under R 103(1)(a) the appeal fee shall be reimbursed where the Board of Appeal deems an appeal to be allowable, if such reimbursement is equitable by reason of a substantial procedural violation. The Board cannot identify any procedural deficiencies. <span style="color: #ff6600;">In the present decision, the Board is taking a view on the question of interpretation of the applicant’s debit order that differs from that of the RS. However, the fact that the Board has come to a different conclusion from the department of first instance does not by itself mean that the latter committed a substantial procedural violation </span>(see for example decisions <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t880087ep1.html">T 87/88</a>; <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t890538du1.pdf">T 538/89</a>, <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t920182eu1.pdf">T 182/92</a>) but is rather a matter of judgment, which does not amount to a procedural violation (see for example decision <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t920182eu1.pdf">T 182/92</a> [7] and <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/caselaw/2013/e/clr_iv_e_8_3_5.htm">Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO, 7<sup>th</sup> edition 2013, IV.E.8.3.5</a>). Consequently, the request for reimbursement of the appeal fee must be refused.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">Should you wish to download the whole decision, just click <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/j120014eu1.pdf">here</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">The file wrapper can be found <a href="https://register.epo.org/espacenet/application?number=EP10185974">here</a>.</span></i></div>
orhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07992102028406713066noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-30726008706023743172013-12-26T02:01:00.000+01:002014-01-01T18:54:37.497+01:00T 816/09 – Untechnical Measurements<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">This is an examination appeal.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">Claim 1 on file read:</span></i></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><span lang="EN-US">1. A system for
operating a virally marketed facility, comprising:</span></i><i><span lang="EN-US">a processor;</span></i><i><span lang="EN-US">a memory coupled to
the processor;</span></i><i><span lang="EN-US">a user interface
coupled to the processor;</span></i><i><span lang="EN-US">wherein the processor
is to:</span></i><br />
<ul><i><span lang="EN-US">
<li style="text-align: justify;"><i><span lang="EN-US">measure virality of
the facility based on a conversion rate and a propagation rate;</span></i></li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><i><span lang="EN-US">determine potential
options for increasing virality; and</span></i></li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><i><span lang="EN-US">execute potential
options for increasing virality.</span></i></li>
</span></i></ul>
<i><span lang="EN-US">
</span></i></blockquote>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">The Examining Divison (ED) </span></i><i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">considered
that the problem addressed was of a business nature, namely how to enhance the
profit of a virally marketed business facility. The solution proposed was to
measure the effectiveness of the viral marketing campaign by tracking the
results (number of invitations, number of registrations) and to pursue only
business options that increased the virality and profitability of the campaign.
No technical problem other than the implementation of the business model on a
computer system appeared from the application. The implementation did not go
beyond notorious technical functions associated with any
business/administrative task on a computer system. Thus the ED refused the
application for lack of inventive step.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">The Board came to the same
conclusion:<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[3] In the light of A 52(1)(2)(3), A 56 EPC
1973 requires a non-obvious technical contribution (see e.g. <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t000641ex1.pdf">T 641/00</a> [headnote
1]; <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t061784eu1.pdf">T 1784/06</a>).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[4] The Board does not consider the problems
put forward by the appellant to have a technical character.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">Viral marketing utilises human social behaviour
to (self-)propagate information which effectively advertises a facility (such
as a website). It is a marketing person’s choice to consider high propagation
and conversion rates of an advertisement as indicators of success of a
marketing campaign and to call those rates the virality of the marketed
facility.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">It is the marketing person that seeks to
increase the marketing success as judged by his/her definition of virality.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[5] <span style="color: #ff6600;">The Board does
not consider that any “measurement of any property is an inherently technical
task” […]. It will crucially depend on what is “measured”, and whether or not
the measurement involves technical means. For example, the description mentions
[…] that the ultimate “measure” of success is revenue, which is a financial
concept. At paragraph 0047, the virality of a website is measured by evaluating
public discussion, which could simply be achieved by interviews (mental acts).</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[6] <span style="color: #ff6600;">Thus, the technically
skilled person comes into play only at the implementation level. However,
counting click rates to measure the popularity or virality of a website does
not require an inventive step. </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">This finding is implicitly acknowledged by the
application which leaves technical implementation details to the skilled
reader.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">Trying out whether a variation of a website
increases or decreases its popularity does not imply any non-obvious technical
consideration, either.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[7] The virality of a website (or other facility)
might conceivably be increased by providing it with innovative technical
features.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">However, claim 1 does not define the nature of
the “options” to be executed. Hence, no technical contribution can be derived
from the “options for increasing virality”. This view is confirmed by the
options defined in claim 2, such as providing additional commercial aspects of
the facility […].<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[8] Therefore, the Board judges that the system
for operating a virally marketed facility according to claim 1 and the
corresponding apparatus according to claim 7 do not involve an inventive step.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">Should you wish to download the
whole decision, just click <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t090816eu1.pdf">here</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">The file wrapper can be found <a href="https://register.epo.org/espacenet/application?number=EP05005267">here</a>.</span></i></div>
orhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07992102028406713066noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-89483074813726717412013-12-25T02:01:00.000+01:002014-01-01T18:54:16.759+01:00T 1674/12 – Christmas With Nespresso<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">In this decision on a Nespresso ® patent – which has excited Tufty the cat some time ago (see <a href="http://tuftythecat.blogspot.fr/2013/10/partial-priority-opposing-view.html">here</a>) – Board 3.2.04 in a five-man composition </span></i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">inter alia<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> had to deal with a whole bunch of partiality objections raised by the four opponents after a somewhat chaotic series of oral proceedings (OPs) before the Opposition Division (OD). To make a long story short, OPs had been summoned for September 8, 2011, but the OD decided to continue on September 9, although several opponents objected to this and were absent on that day. However, at the beginning of the OPs on September 9, the OD made only one statement and then decided to adjourn the OPs after the patent proprietor had requested it to do so. The OPs were resumed on April 18, 2012. </i></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">The decision also contains an interesting paragraph on a statement that the EPO spokesman made after the decision of the OD.</span></i></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">*** Translation of <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t121674fu1.pdf">the French original </a>***</span></i></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">[2.1] Opponents 1 and 3 have essentially required [the Board] to set aside the impugned decision and to remit the case to the first instance in order for it to be dealt with by an OD in a different composition. They have alleged a series of procedural violations which they considered to be substantial, in particular a bias of the OD resulting from seven particular points seen in combination and which were presented both in writing and orally. Moreover, the continuation of the opposition proceedings after an appeal had been filed constituted a substantial procedural violation in itself.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">[2.2] The first point intended to demonstrate the bias of the OD concerns the fact that the date for OPs was fixed three months after the end of the time limit for filing an opposition (and, more generally, the alleged acceleration and deceleration of the proceedings in line with the instructions of the patent proprietor). When this time limit had expired on February 12, 2011, four oppositions had been filed by opponents 1 to 4. The patent proprietor has commented on these oppositions on March 29, has referred to a series of infringement proceedings and has asked for an acceleration of the proceedings, i.e. for OPs to be held before September 23, 2011, because a hearing by a Dutch tribunal was to be held on that day. The OD has allowed this request.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">In view of the fact that the patent proprietor has given reasons for his request for accelerated proceedings by providing evidence that the national infringement proceedings had indeed been opened (incidentally, their existence has not been contested by the opponents), the Board cannot see why it would have been wrong to summon </span></span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">[the parties] </span></span> to OPs to be held on September 8, 2011. The assertion according to which the OD submitted to the instructions of the patent proprietor and has accelerated and then slowed down the proceedings has not been proven. First, the acts of the patent proprietor do not attest that it undertook efforts in order to slow down the proceedings. It has to be noted that the efforts undertaken in order to stay <u>the national proceedings</u> (and not the opposition proceedings) until there was a final result of the opposition proceedings are in line with the request for acceleration. The patent proprietor has only once requested a stay of the proceedings, during the OPs held on September 9, 2011, under very special circumstances where the adjournment of the proceedings was indeed the only correct procedural solution, even if this fact has only been acknowledged (<i>reconnu</i>) at a later time (see below). Moreover, the patent proprietor has consistently requested accelerated proceedings.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">On the other hand, the fact that the OD has not allowed the request of opponent 1 for a stay of the proceedings and has not cancelled the OPs foreseen on April 18, 2012, after opponent 1 had filed the statement of grounds in appeal case T 112/12 does not justify the suspicion of partiality on behalf of the OD. As explained below, this appeal had no suspensive effect. The letter of opponent 1 dated April 13, 2012, i.e. five days before the OPs to which </span></span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">[the parties] </span></span> had already been summoned, only informed the OD on the filing of the statement of grounds but did not draw the attention of the OD to any new fact that could have an impact on the OPs, such as the stay of national proceedings. Under these circumstances, the OD was not entitled to deal with the appeal and the arguments and facts presented together with the statement of grounds in appeal case T 111/12 were not part of the opposition proceedings. Moreover, a stay of national proceedings is no good reason for staying the opposition proceedings before the EPO. Quite to the contrary, what is desirable is for the proceedings to come to an end quickly, and all the more so because the OPs of April 18, 2012, were only the continuation of OPs that had been interrupted. </span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">To sum up, the OD has conducted the proceedings in a way that is not only formally lawful but also reasonable.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">[2.3] The second point which [the opponents] invoke concerns the assertion according to which the opponents had been limited in their liberty of expression during the OPs of September 23, 2011, by the chairman of the OD who had told the parties that they had to stick to presenting their own arguments and should not develop arguments that had already been presented by the other parties. This objection is difficult to evaluate because the minutes do not mention this instruction and the parties do not agree with each other as to whether such an instruction has indeed been given. According to the patent proprietor, the chairman of the OD has simply expressed the fact that it was not useful to repeat what the parties had presented in writing because the members of the division were fully aware of [those arguments]. </span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Instructions of that kind on behalf of a chairman of the OD are not uncommon in such a situation and appear to be justified in view of the number of parties and the complexity of the file.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #ff6600; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">What is decisive in the eyes of the Board […] is that the minutes do not comprise any indication that the opponents had had the impression of being unable to present their arguments and had protested, for instance by requesting this fact to be mentioned in the minutes. Quite to the contrary, the fact that the OPs could not be terminated on the first day makes the Board think that the parties have not been limited in the way in which they presented their case.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">As a consequence, the Board comes to the conclusion that it has not been established that the opponents had been limited in the way in which they presented their case.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">[2.4] The third point which [the opponents] invoke concerns the question of whether the OD has helped the patent proprietor in drafting new claims in the course of the OPs. According to the minutes […] the OD has concluded that certain amendments did not extend the [claimed] subject-matter beyond the contents of the application as filed, but has identified an essential feature that was not found in claim 1 anymore. Based on this opponent 1 concludes that the division had suggested a particular wording of the claim.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">First of all, it has to be noted that in a situation where a great number of amendments has been discussed as to [their compliance with] A 123(2) it is absolutely normal [for the OD] to state which are the amendments that do not comply with the requirements of this article. Otherwise, the patent proprietor would have to file a great number of requests in advance in order to consider all possible combinations. </span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Moreover, apparently the patent proprietor has not drafted a new claim after this indication. [The Board] has the impression that then auxiliary request 2, which had been on file before, was discussed. It is true that new auxiliary requests have been filed during the second OPs held on April 18, 2012. The Board cannot see how the OD could have helped the patent proprietor in drafting these claims either. It has simply announced during the OPs held on September 9, 2011, that it believed that the claim to priority was not valid. Even if the OPs of September 8, 2011, had been correctly adjourned, this conclusion would have had to be communicated to the parties in writing, well before the continuation of the proceedings on April 18, 2012. Consequently the patent proprietor had not been favoured by the division as a consequence of having already been informed on September 9, 2011. </span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">[2.5] The fourth point which [the opponents] invoke was the fact that one of the members of the OD (other than its chairman) had participated in the grant of a patent for a divisional application of the impugned patent (EP 2181629). The communication concerning the grant of this patent has been issued on July 29, 2011, shortly after the summons to OPs and before the OPs to be held on September 8. The opponents express the opinion that the first examiner of the OD at least has shown partiality, by granting a patent for a divisional application without waiting for the decision regarding the prior patent, although he was aware of the objections raised against the prior patent.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #ff6600; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">In this respect one has to consider that it is admissible for a member of an Examining Division (ED) to participate in opposition proceedings concerning the same patent, provided that he does not chair the OD, see A 19(2), and the opponents have acknowledged this fact. This regulation differs from the one applicable to members of the Boards of appeal, A 24(1). In view of the fact that an examiner who has participated in grant proceedings for a patent may, under the provisions of the EPC, be member of the OD and decide on the validity of the same patent, it can hardly be criticised that a member of an OD has participated in the examination of another patent, even if the latter is related (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">apparenté</i>). Such participation cannot justify that the member be excluded or suspected of partiality. Considering the fact that the examination file wrappers are open to public inspection, an examiner who participates in the examination of a divisional application cannot be said to be in possession of any particular piece of information that is not available to everyone and which could somehow justify any bias whatsoever. </span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #ff6600; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">The assertion of opponents 1 and 3 according to which the first examiner has proven biased is based on the fact that they consider that the examiner ought not take a decision regarding a divisional application before the outcome of the opposition against the prior patent on which it is based is known, but that he should above all take it into account when deciding the fate of the divisional application. In this respect [the Board] wishes to remind [the opponents of the fact] that the decision to grant a patent is taken by the ED and not by the first examiner alone. The Board acknowledges that a way of proceeding as suggested by the opponents appears to be, as such, perfectly reasonable and perhaps even preferable if the conditions and the organization of the treatment of the files by the ED allow to [proceed in that way]. However, to require the ED to <u>mandatorily</u> wait for the outcome of another case that is dealt with by another division, even if the file is related, would jeopardise the independence of the ED. This makes it very clear that the decision of the examiner to proceed with the divisional application cannot be considered as a sure sign of partiality.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">[2.6] The fifth point concerns the continuation of the OPs on September 9, 2011, although the summons only mentioned September 8, and the opponents 1 and 3 had expressed their disagreement. This very Board (in a different composition) has decided in another case (<a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t102534du1.pdf">T 2534/10</a>) that OPs could not be continued the day after without there having been summons respecting the minimum time limit of two months (R 115). Thus the continuation of the OPs the day after constitutes a procedural violation, irrespective of whether the opponents 1 and 3 had protested against this decision or not. In order to continue the proceedings on September 9, an explicit agreement of all the parties would have been required. The above-mentioned decision of the Board has also made clear that a remittal was necessary only if this error had had an impact on the final decision, and has ordered the OD to resume the proceedings, but only from the point at which the error had occurred. According to this decision, the proceedings had to be remitted only for resuming the procedural acts that had been made on the second day, for which there had not been summons. </span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">This notwithstanding, the Board wishes to remind [the opponents] that decision </span></span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t102534du1.pdf">T 2534/10</a></span></span> has been taken on April 23, 2012, and that the reasons for the decision have been notified on July 31, 2012, i.e. after the OPs held on September 9, 2011. The OD was not necessarily aware of the fact that it committed a procedural violation, even if the opponents had invoked such an argument. It follows that the behaviour of the OD cannot be considered to have been biased for this reason. [The Board] also has to remind [the opponents] that their arguments regarding a possible procedural violation, although they had been raised at once, could only have been considered during an interruption of the OPs, i.e. in the evening of September 8, during the night from September 8 to September 9 or before the opening of the OPs on the next day. Under these circumstances, the fact that the OD finally acceded to the requests of the opponents without any excessive delays and adjourned the OPs, as explained above, cannot establish a bias of the OD.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">According to the minutes, the OPs of September 9 have been opened and the OD has announced that the priority (D1) could not be validly claimed because of the feature “characteristic position of the axis in the housing”. Then the patent proprietor requested an adjournment of the OPs, which has been granted. The OPs were resumed on April 18, 2012, after summons in due form and respecting the time limits had been issued. Assuming the minutes to be correct, no procedural act involving the parties has taken place on September 9. The conclusion regarding the deliberation of the OD could also have been notified in writing. This decision was not contrary to the requests (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">pretentions</i>) of the opponents either because the OD has decided in their favour. The parties have been informed of this decision both through the communication of the minutes and by the chairman of the OD who has repeated the announcement of the decision as soon as the OPs of April 18 were opened. Even if the proceedings had not been continued on September 9, the outcome of the deliberation of the OD would, as usual, have been communicated [to the parties] by sending the minutes or together with the summons to the new OPs. In other words, the proceedings would have been essentially the same if the OD had adjourned the OPs in the evening of September 8, 2011, without continuing them on the next day. Opponent 1 has admitted that the continuation of the proceedings on September 9 had not adversely affected it, but it found strange that the proceedings had been continued despite the protests of two of the opponents and adjourned at once at the request of the patent proprietor. The opponents 1 and 3 thought that this again showed the bias of the OD. However, by adjourning the OPs the OD has also decided in favour of the requests of the opponents 1 and 3 without any excessive delay and has satisfied the procedural requirements by summoning to new OPs respecting the time limit laid down in R 115.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">[2.7] The sixth point concerns the contents of the minutes of the OPs of September 8 and, more particularly, of September 9. In particular, based on the testimony of opponent 2, opponent 3 has pointed out that the patent proprietor had filed and then withdrawn a request during the OPs of September 9, without this having been mentioned in the minutes. Opponents 1 and 3, which were absent on September 9, therefore, wonder what has really happened on that day. As a matter of fact, some parties have requested a correction of the minutes: the patent proprietor in its letters dated November 14 and December 14, opponent 2 in its letter dated December 1, and opponent 3 in its letter dated November 9, 2011. According to the opponents, on September 9, the patent proprietor had filed an auxiliary request 9. The patent proprietor has contested this allegation. The OD has refused to correct the minutes and has justified its position in a letter dated January 10, 2012. In view of these contradictory statements, the Board is unable to decide whether the minutes are indeed defective or incomplete. The subsequent proceedings at least appear not to imply this and the way in which the OPs of April 18, 2012, took place also appears to be coherent with the events as recorded in the minutes of September 8-9, 2011. It follows that the Board has no objective reason to conclude that the events of September 9 differ from what is recorded in the minutes.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">[2.8] The seventh point concerns a declaration on behalf of the press relations department (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">service de presse</i>) of the EPO, which has been published in different media and languages after the OPs had been terminated. On April 19, 2012, the Reuters agency, for instance, has published an <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/19/nestle-nespresso-idUSL6E8FJE0F20120419">article</a> containing the following text: </span></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">“The EPO confirmed it has upheld a Nestle patent issued in 2010 concerning the way Nespresso capsules fit its machines, with minor modifications, spokesman Rainer Osterwalder said, adding the ruling could be appealed.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">“The patent may stand but in an amended form”, Osterwalder said. “The essential part of the invention has not been touched by the limitations.”</span></span></div>
</blockquote>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #ff6600; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Obviously, the EPO is not entitled to issue speculations on what constitutes the essential part of the invention. But even letting aside the question of whether the press relations department has been correctly cited, such a declaration obviously is to be imputed (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">reste le fait</i>) to the press relations department and not to the OD. To deduce any bias whatsoever of the OD during the proceedings from a declaration that another department of the EPO has made after the closing of the OPs would presuppose that this declaration has been issued by the OD itself, which has not been confirmed.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">[2.9] Opponents 1 and 3 have pointed out during the OPs before the Board of appeal that even if the different points mentioned, when considered separately, would not justify a bias on behalf of the OD, they nevertheless showed, when considered together, that the patent proprietor had been systematically favoured.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #ff6600; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Objectively, the OD has made every effort to deal quickly with a very complicated case. Its desire to continue the OPs on September 9 was wrong, but it has renounced, either because it realised its error or because a corresponding request had been filed by the patent proprietor. The adjournment of the OPs was a legal necessity and corresponded to what opponents 1 and 3 had requested on the previous evening. It is regrettable that a badly drafted press release had been issued after the OPs, but it cannot be imputed to the OD. As the outcome of opposition and appeal proceeding hardly ever satisfies all parties, it is all the more important to convince the parties that they have been treated in an impartial manner. </span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #ff6600; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">This being said, according to the case law of the EPO, it is not sufficient for establishing a bias that one of the parties may have a subjective impression [of partiality], but one has to include an objective observer (see <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t030190ex1.pdf">T 190/03</a> [9] and <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t030281eu1.pdf">T 281/03</a> [9]). Even though the Board considers that the reasons invoked [by the opponents], when considered together, do not objectively establish a bias, it regrets that two of the opponents have had this impression.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">[2.10] It follows that the Board cannot objectively establish any bias in the behaviour of the OD or any substantial procedural violation. In view of the arguments filed, the request for a remittal is unfounded.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">[2.11] During the written proceedings, but not during the OPs, opponent 3 has submitted that the impugned decision was insufficiently reasoned. It refers in particular to page 35 of the decision, where </span></span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">[the OD]</span></span> allegedly assessed the existence of an inventive step without defining the problem on which the invention was based. This appears to be wrong because the problem to be solved in view of D7 is defined on page 34. The OD then summarises the arguments of the opponents and explains the differences with respect to the prior art. It is only then that the division notes that the person skilled in the field of D7 would not have combined with asymmetric capsules. Therefore, the Board cannot see in which respect the reasoning of this decision is incomplete or missing. That the opponent did not find this reasoning persuasive is another matter. It follows that the ground invoked [by opponent 3] cannot justify a remittal either.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">[2.12] Finally, opponent 1 considered that the continuation of the OPs in April 2012 constituted a substantial procedural violation because on January 12, 2012, it had filed an appeal against the communication of the OD dated January 10, 2012. In this communication the OD had refused to modify the minutes (see point [2.7] above) and presented a summary of the OPs of September 9. Moreover, the OD had announced that the proceedings were to be continued and that there would be summons to new OPs. Before that, opponent 1 had requested, in letters dated December 1 and 8, 2011, that the proceedings would be resumed before an OD in different composition, that the minutes be corrected and that [the OD] would at least issue an appealable decision. Opponent 1 considers the communication dated January 10 to constitute an intermediate decision by which the division dismissed its requests, or at least a refusal to issue an appealable decision. According to [opponent 1], the appeal filed on January 12 (T 112/12) should have led to a stay of the proceedings in any case. Consequently, the continuation of the proceedings constituted a substantial procedural violation.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">[2.13] As appeal T 112/12 has been withdrawn, the Board does not have to consider the question whether appeal T 112/12 may still have potential legal effects that can be examined within the framework of another appeal. Thus the Board will limit itself to commenting on the suspensive effect of the appeal as defined in A 106(1), second sentence. </span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #ff6600; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">It follows from the fact that A 106(1) contains, side by side, two sentences one of which defines decisions that can be appealed, and the other what the effect of an appeal is, that this suspensive effect only applies to appeals as defined in the first sentence, i.e. appeals filed against the decisions listed in the first sentence, which comprise decisions of the OD. For these decisions A 106(2) stipulates that only a decision that terminates proceedings as regards one of the parties can be appealed, unless the decision allows a separate appeal. The communication of the OD dated January 10, 2012, has not terminated proceedings, nor did it mention the possibility of a separate appeal. The question whether it is possible to file an appeal outside the conditions laid down in A 106 is irrelevant, because the appeal T 112/12, for which the question could have arisen, has been withdrawn. In any case, for such an appeal A 106 does not provide any suspensive effect. According to the spirit of A 106 the suspensive effect concerns decisions that terminate proceedings before an instance in order to avoid that the impugned decision might have legal effects (first sentence of A 106(2)), or, alternatively, it concerns decisions for which the instance that makes the decision can itself provide the possibility of filing an appeal (second sentence of A 106(2)). This second sentence clearly stipulates that the instance that makes the decision remains in charge (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">maître</i>) of the proceedings until it takes a decision that terminates these proceedings or allows a separate appeal. Otherwise, the parties would be free to hinder the competent department from dealing with the files in an efficient way. According to A 106, in such a procedural situation, the OD has to take a decision on whether or not it will allow a separate appeal. The parties are not entitled to this option. If, as in the present case, the OD has not expressly allowed a separate appeal, and a party files an appeal, then the OD is entitled to note that this appeal does not satisfy any of the conditions of A 106(2), and in particular, of the conditions of the second sentence of this provision, because its decision did not offer the possibility of a separate appeal, and to pursue the proceedings. If it was not entitled to do so, then the purpose of A 106, which is to allow the decision-making instance to bring the proceedings to an end, could not be reached.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #ff6600; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">However, the purpose of the limitation of the possibility to file an appeal to decisions which terminate proceedings as regards one of the parties and decisions that allow a separate appeal would be circumvented if any appeal against any procedural act made during examination or during an opposition had a suspensive effect. The Board notes that if an appeal concerns a case that is not foreseen by A 106(1) and (2) (that is to say, an appeal against a procedural act that is not mentioned in A 106(1) and (2), or a decision of the OD that does not allow a separate appeal), this appeal does not have a suspensive effect irrespective of whether the appeal is admissible (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">recevable</i>) or not. The Board wishes to emphasise that this finding is not in contradiction with decision <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/j030028ex1.pdf">J 28/03</a>, because decision <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/j030028ex1.pdf">J 28/03</a> obviously has not considered the procedural situation from which the question that is presently before the Board has arisen.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">[2.14] In the present case [the opponents] cannot invoke any suspensive effect irrespective of whether appeal T 112/12 is admissible or not. This is not an appeal against one of the decisions mentioned in A 106 (1) and (2), for which [the EPC] provides a suspensive effect. Thus the OD was entitled to note this fact and to exercise its discretionary power such as to pursue the proceedings. The Board does not see how the decision to pursue the proceedings can be seen to be based on an erroneous assessment. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Therefore, opponent 1’s request for a remittal of the present case cannot be allowed. Its request to refer this question to the Enlarged Board of appeal has been withdrawn during the OPs before the Board. Incidentally, this request could not have been granted because the decision of the Board is directly based on the interpretation of the EPC by the Board and because the Board is not aware of any divergent decision on that topic.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">[2.15] As the case is not remitted, it would not make sense to decide on the composition of the OD.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">Finally the patent was revoked because the request on file did not comply with the requirements of A 123(2).</span></i></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #e69138;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">Having had a glimpse of the courtroom atmosphere in this case, I am sure you will find Christmas dinner with aunt Aglaé relatively enjoyable.</span></i></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">Should you wish to download the whole decision, just click <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t121674fu1.pdf">here</a>.</span></i></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">The file wrapper can be found <a href="https://register.epo.org/espacenet/application?number=EP09007962">here</a>.</span></i></span></div>
orhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07992102028406713066noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-22477014647199695392013-12-24T02:01:00.001+01:002013-12-30T21:27:58.092+01:00J 17/12 – Entry Denied<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiu4W-c2XcnQhiWdT1SoHlE9OJ_6X-SeOigqI6U_Lqd7B2Mmxoi8FCiVNDZQG2_lSMmlibMToCQ0PQV3JPPs_zFzCRbXMHer64HAd6mxm4yQZct9BVSFnJdzMRYmIaNmm-hK5yzLko27BY/s1600/NoEntry.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiu4W-c2XcnQhiWdT1SoHlE9OJ_6X-SeOigqI6U_Lqd7B2Mmxoi8FCiVNDZQG2_lSMmlibMToCQ0PQV3JPPs_zFzCRbXMHer64HAd6mxm4yQZct9BVSFnJdzMRYmIaNmm-hK5yzLko27BY/s400/NoEntry.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">This decision deals with the question whether a transfer of a European patent application should be recorded in the register although the proceedings for grant have been suspended under R 14.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">If you just want a short summary of the Board’s answer, here it is: </span></i><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #ff6600; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">No</span></i><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">If you want to know why, please read on.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">The application under consideration was filed by Mr Fein in 2006. In 2008, there was a transfer to Reprise Pharmaceutics. On February 7, 2011, a communication under R 71(3) was issued. On March 28, 2011, Ferring instituted entitlement proceedings in the District Court of The Hague. The proceedings were stayed. On April 20, Reprise filed a request to record the transfer of the application from Reprise to Allergan. Allergan requested that the proceedings be resumed. The Legal Division (LD) recorded the transfer but refused to resume the proceedings. Both parties appealed the decision.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-GB">Transfer of the application<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[2.1] Ferring’s first argument is that once the EPO knew that Reprise’s title to the application had been put in doubt by virtue of the national entitlement proceedings, it should not have accepted on the evidence supplied by Reprise that the application had been transferred to Allergan.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[2.2] The LD rejected this argument and the Board agrees. The general principle under the EPC is that an application for a European patent, as an object of property, is subject to national law and may be transferred (see A 74 and 71). The Board has no reason to doubt that the present application was, as an object of property, transferable to Allergan and that it was indeed transferred, subject no doubt to whatever claims Ferring might establish under national law.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-GB">Recording of the transfer in the register: the relevant provisions<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[3.1] R 22(1) provides that the transfer of a European patent application shall be recorded in the European Patent Register at the request of an interested party upon production of documents providing evidence of such transfer. R 22(2) provides that such a request may be rejected only if R 22(1) has not been complied with. Subject to Ferring’s argument in point [2.1], above, it is not disputed that the evidence filed by Reprise satisfied the formal requirements of the rule.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[3.2] <span style="color: #ff6600;">As to R 14(1), this provides that if the relevant conditions are satisfied (which they were in this case) “the proceedings for grant shall be stayed”. Allergan argues that the recording of a transfer of a patent application in the register is not part of the proceedings for grant. The LD agreed.</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[3.3] There are certainly no express provisions of the EPC indicating that R 22(1) and (2) should be put on hold in circumstances where proceedings for grant have been stayed under R 14(1). This is in contrast, for example, to R 15, which expressly provides that in the period during which proceedings for grant are stayed neither the European patent application nor the designation of any Contracting State may be withdrawn.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-GB">Recording of the transfer during a stay: the case law<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[4.1] So far as the Board and the parties are aware, there is no decision of the Boards of Appeal directly on the point. In the two related cases, <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/j920038du1.pdf">J 38/92</a> and <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/j920039du1.pdf">J 39/92</a>, the Legal Board made the general statement that a stay of the grant proceedings has the effect that during the suspension neither the EPO nor the parties can validly perform any legal acts. On the contrary, the grant proceedings remain unaltered in the legal state existing at the point in time of the stay. Taken by itself this general statement might be taken to cover the present case and rule out Allergan’s arguments.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[4.2] It is, however, necessary to have regard to what the facts of those two cases were. A third party had brought national proceedings against the applicant, as a result of which it had obtained a decision of the national court that the two applications were to be transferred back to the third party, and belonged to it (die Patentanmeldung auf die dritte Partei “zurückzuübertragen ist und ihr zusteht.”) The third party had not meanwhile applied for a stay of the grant proceedings but rather, only after obtaining the decision of the national court and then relying on this as evidence, filed a request for transfer of the applications to it. The request was granted but on appeal the Board decided this way of proceeding was wrong: a request under R 20(1) EPC 1973 (now R 22(1)) must be based on evidence of a transfer document, and such evidence was missing. The Board went on to conclude that the request should have been dealt with as a request under A 61(1)(a) by the third party to prosecute the application as its own and that the EPO should have stayed the grant proceedings under R 13(1) with effect from the date of the request. The Board then added the comment cited above, namely that the stay of the grant proceedings meant that neither the EPO nor the parties could validly perform any legal acts and that the grant proceedings remain unaltered in legal state existing at the point in time of stay (“Die Aussetzung des Erteilungsverfahrens hat die Wirkung, daß in dem ausgesetzten Verfahren weder das Europäische Patentamt noch die Parteien wirksam Rechtsakte vornehmen können. </span><span lang="DE">Das Erteilungsverfahren verbleibt vielmehr unverändert in dem Rechtsstadium, in dem es sich zum Zeitpunkt der Aussetzung befand.“) </span><span lang="EN-GB">See point [2.5] of the reasons in both cases. This was relevant in the particular circumstance of <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/j920038du1.pdf">J 38/92</a> because meanwhile (i.e., after the grant proceedings should have been stayed) the mention of the grant to the original applicant had been published in the Official Journal. The Board thus made it clear this act of the Office had had no legal effect. See points [2.5] and [2(b)] of the reasons and the order, respectively. The factual position was not the same in <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/j920039du1.pdf">J 39/92</a> (where the comment appears in identical terms): in this case there appear to have been no acts by the EPO or the parties which the Board needed to make clear were invalid. The remark therefore appears to have been an <i>obiter dictum</i>.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[4.3] In the light of these facts, the present Board therefore considers that the above general statement cannot be taken as necessarily applying to the facts of the present case. The mention of the grant in the Official Journal, which was the relevant act of the EPO in <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/j920038du1.pdf">J 38/92</a>, was undoubtedly a step in the proceedings for grant. It cannot be said with a similar level of certainty that the same is true of the registration of the transfer of the application.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[4.4] Ferring relied on the decision in <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/j050020eu1.pdf">J 20/05</a>. In that case, the issue was whether an applicant was entitled to file a divisional application at a time when proceedings for grant of the parent application had been stayed. Ferring pointed to the fact that the Board there held that the entitlement to file a divisional application was a procedural right that derived from the applicant’s status as applicant under the earlier application, and thus it had to be examined whether the applicant was entitled to file the divisional application by virtue of being the applicant in the earlier parent application. The Board held that since the rights in respect of a divisional application could only be derived from the parent application, the disputed right of the applicant to file the parent application could not form a sufficient basis for a right to file a divisional application. Ferring argued, applying this reasoning, that when the request to record the transfer of the application was filed by Reprise, there was doubt about who was the person lawfully entitled.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[4.5] While this decision could no doubt support Ferring’s position, the Legal Board there made the point, citing <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/j010002ex1.pdf">J 2/01</a>, that the entitlement to file a divisional application is a procedural right that derives from the applicant’s status as applicant under the earlier application (point [2] of the reasons). The point was repeated in <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/j120009eu1.pdf">J 9/12</a> [3]. The present Board cannot be confident that a right to have a transfer of an application registered following a request under R 22(1), which may be filed by any interested party, is such a procedural right. The Board therefore prefers to approach the question applying more general principles, as set out below.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-GB">Stay of proceedings: the general principles.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[5.1] The purpose of R 14(1) is to protect the third party’s interests during entitlement proceedings, at least provisionally (<a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/j960007ex1.pdf">J 7/96</a> [2.3]; <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/j060015eu1.pdf">J 15/06</a> [7]; <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/j050020eu1.pdf">J 20/05</a> [3]).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[5.2] Whether or not the recording of a transfer literally constitutes part of the “proceedings for grant” (and thus falls within the express wording of R 14(1)), the decision in <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/j050020eu1.pdf">J 20/05</a> demonstrates that the effect of a stay under R 14(1) is not limited to a stay of “proceedings for grant”, understood literally: other acts may also be excluded by a stay if they are inconsistent with the objective of protecting the third party’s rights. Rule 14 EPC 1973 can prevent, as <i>lex specialis</i>, other acts, e.g., as in <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/j050020eu1.pdf">J 20/05</a>, the filing of a divisional application (see also <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/g090001ex1.pdf">G 1/09</a> [3.2.5], and <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/j120009eu1.pdf">J 9/12</a> [3,5]). In <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/j050020eu1.pdf">J 20/05</a> the filing of a divisional application was held to be excluded because of the need to protect the third party’s rights in the parent application. The Board said:</span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span lang="EN-GB">“... the appellant’s argument that it is not forbidden by R 13(1) to file a divisional application during suspension of the parent application proceedings cannot succeed.</span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span lang="EN-GB">Even if the filing of a divisional application during suspension of the parent application proceedings is not expressly excluded by R 13 EPC [1973], R 13 is stated in general terms and it is consistent with its objective of protecting the third party claimant’s rights that the filing of a divisional application during suspension should be prevented.</span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span lang="EN-GB">It would be inconsistent with and contrary to the fundamental objective of the provisions on suspension, on the one hand to suspend the parent application proceedings because of the national entitlement proceedings, but on the other to allow the filing of a divisional application by the applicant whose entitlement is challenged.”</span></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">See point [3] of the reasons, and also <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/j120009eu1.pdf">J 9/12</a> [5].<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-GB">Registration of transfer during a stay: the Board’s conclusions<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[6.1] <span style="color: #ff6600;">The question is thus whether the registration of a transfer of an application is inconsistent with the fundamental objective of the suspension of the proceedings, which is to protect the third party claimant’s rights in the application.</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[6.2] <span style="color: #ff6600;">The core provision of the EPC so far as entitlement proceedings are concerned is A 61(1), which provides various remedies if “by a final decision it is adjudged that a person other than the applicant is entitled to the grant of the European patent”. In this respect it seems to the Board that if the EPO is to be required to act on such a decision, it needs to be a decision which establishes that the third party rather than “the applicant” is entitled to the grant. The Board considers that “the applicant” here can only mean the person entered on the register as applicant. The Board considers that a decision establishing that the third party rather than the former applicant, or indeed some other person, was entitled to the grant would not be sufficient for this purpose. It seems to the Board that if Allergan was correctly registered as the applicant, it was indeed necessary for Ferring to bring proceedings against Allergan, with all the increased costs which that involved. There would then also be nothing to prevent the application being subsequently transferred and registered in the name of another applicant. It follows that if the registered applicant can be freely changed while proceedings for grant are stayed, the third party’s attempts to obtain the remedies available under A 61(1) could be repeatedly frustrated.</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[6.3] The LD originally took the view that following the registration of Allergan as applicant it was necessary for Ferring to bring proceedings against Allergan […]. In its decision, however, the LD changed its view: “… it is not necessary to institute separate entitlement proceedings before a competent court against the now registered applicant after a transfer of the application has taken place from the then registered applicant to the actual registered applicant.” […]. However, the Division does not appear to have taken into account in this context the significance of the reference to the “applicant” in A 61(1). The statement was also in fact made by way of introduction to the point that the entitlement proceedings had been brought against the person who was at the time registered as applicant (Reprise) and this was sufficient to entitle Ferring to a stay of the grant proceedings. As to this point, the LD was clearly correct.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[6.4] Allergan argued that the Board’s reading of A 61(1) is not correct: a final decision which establishes that Ferring is entitled to the grant will necessarily mean that no one else is entitled. It would in effect be a decision <i>in rem</i>. The Board disagrees with this argument. It would mean that a decision against a straw-defendant would oblige the EPO to implement the machinery of A 61. It is not even necessary to go to such an extreme example; it is not difficult to imagine non-collusive national proceedings in which a judgement on entitlement was obtained against some person other than the applicant.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[6.5] Allergan did not in fact argue in the alternative that a final decision obtained against a person who once was the applicant would, so far as the EPO is concerned in the application of A 61(1), be binding against a transferee from this applicant and who had since been registered as applicant. The Board considers that Allergan was correct not to do so. The effect of a final decision on any successors in title to the applicant would be a matter of national law. Rather, <span style="color: #ff6600;">Allergan argued that if a transfer of the application was registered during the national entitlement proceedings, or even after a final decision was obtained, the third party could simply institute fresh entitlement proceedings and obtain a decision against that new applicant. It seems to the Board that this is the opposite of protecting the interests of the third party, given the expense and delay involved, and taking into account the fact that such proceedings would have to be brought in whatever was the appropriate jurisdiction according the Protocol on Recognition. </span>A similar point arose in <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/j050020eu1.pdf">J 20/05</a>, where it was argued, in the context of a divisional application being filed during suspension of the parent grant proceedings, that a third party could simply bring entitlement proceedings in respect of such divisional application, and apply to stay grant proceedings on that divisional application. The Board said:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">“It has to be noted that it is not possible for the claimant third party to apply to the EPO for an automatic and immediate suspension of the divisional application proceedings by way of an extension of the suspension of the parent application proceedings. On the contrary, in order to have the divisional application proceedings suspended the third party would first have to bring (“open”) new national proceedings against the applicant in which it sought a judgment that it is entitled to the grant of a patent on the divisional application. The third party would then have to provide evidence that it had brought such proceedings and finally the matter would have to be decided by the EPO. All this would clearly put an additional heavy and undue burden on the third party and would be contrary to the objective of the suspension of the parent application proceedings, which is to protect its interests.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">See also <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/j120009eu1.pdf">J 9/12</a> [7].<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[6.6] <span style="color: #ff6600;">Allergan argued that it was important in the public interest that the register should reflect the true position so that, for example, if someone wished to acquire a licence in this case they would know that they should apply to Allergan and not Reprise. The Legal division also considered this informational role of the register to be an important factor. However, quite apart from the fact that anyone wishing to obtain a licence would presumably be re-directed by Reprise to Allergan, there is nothing to stop the filing, during the suspension of grant proceedings, of a request to transfer the application. The effect of a stay in the light of the Board’s decision will simply be that no action will be taken on the request during the suspension. While the fact of the transfer may not be apparent from the register, it will be apparent from an inspection of the public file, as will the decision to stay the grant proceedings itself. The public will therefore be sufficiently informed.</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[6.7] The Board can accept that when it comes to implementing the mechanism of R 14 and R 15 it seems appropriate to consider the interests of the person who <i>prima facie</i> has the real interest in the application (here Allergan) rather than the interests of someone who <i>prima facie</i> no longer has any real interest in the application (here Reprise). However, for the reasons given below (point [8.4]), the Board considers that on such a request it would be appropriate to consider all the relevant circumstances, including the fact that the application had been transferred to a party with commercial interests in pursuing the remedies under A 61(1).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[6.8] <span style="color: #ff6600;">Hence, the Board concludes, on the one hand, that the registration of Allergan as applicant while the grant proceedings were stayed failed to protect Ferring’s legitimate interests under A 61(1) as a third party and, on the other, that there are no sufficient practical or procedural objections against the suspension of any action to be taken on the request to register the transfer while proceedings are suspended.</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-GB">Registration of transfer: referral of a question to the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[7.1] In the light of the Board’s conclusion that the registration of Allergan as applicant should be reversed, Allergan requested that a question be referred to the EBA as follows:</span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span lang="EN-GB">“Can a transfer of a patent application be registered during a suspension of proceedings under R 14?”</span></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[7.2] Allergan argued that a point of law of fundamental importance within the meaning of A 112(1) arises. Whether or not this is the case, the Board sees no need to refer the question. The Board has been able to come to a conclusion applying what it considers to be the established principles. It is also not in any doubt about the result and is not aware of any legal view-points expressed either in national case law or in legal commentaries which might cast doubt on the conclusion reached (see J 5/81 [11]).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-GB">The procedural consequence of reversal of registration<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[8.1] The consequence of the Board’s decision that the registration of Allergan as applicant must be reversed now has to be considered. The LD, having decided that Allergan had been correctly registered as applicant, went on to deal with the competing requests arising out of the suspension of the grant proceedings, in the end reaching a decision not to make any order in this respect. This second part of the decision was also the subject of both appeals. In its communication sent to the parties on 15 July 2013 in preparation for the oral proceedings (OPs), the Board pointed out that if the decision on registration was wrong it would mean that the wrong parties had been before the LD and now the Board in these appeal proceedings.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[8.2] Neither party filed any response to this observation. However, during the OPs before the Board, and after the Board had announced its conclusion that the registration of Allergan as applicant had to be reversed, Allergan for the first time advanced a submission that the appeal proceedings could then and there be continued because even though Allergan was now known not to be the applicant, it was entitled under R 14(3) as an interested party to request continuation of the grant proceedings. As to the absence of Reprise from the proceedings, Allergan’s representatives said that they also represented Reprise, so that there was no obstacle to the appeal being continued on this basis.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[8.3] As to this point, the Board makes the following observations:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">(a) The essential purpose of appeal proceedings is to decide whether the decision under appeal was correct. In the present case the essential issues decided by the LD and the issues which then became the subject matter in the appeal proceedings were whether the registration of Allergan as applicant should be reversed, and whether the grant proceedings should be resumed on the request of the applicant and, if so, when. Whether grant proceedings should be resumed on the application of another party, being the transferee of the application, was never an issue in the first instance proceedings. Nor until the afternoon of the OPs before the Board was it raised in the appeal proceedings.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">(b) In reality, Allergan’s argument amounted to a request for the Board to exercise its discretion to allow Allergan to amend its case at a very late stage of the appeal proceedings by reconstituting the entire proceedings and continuing with the appeal on that basis (see Articles 13(1) and (3) RPBA).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">(c) This request was a response to a state of affairs that had been a clear possibility for over three years, namely from 3 August 2011, the date when Ferring first filed its request to reverse the registration of Allergan as applicant […]. However, Allergan at no time took any steps to guard against this possibility by filing auxiliary requests on behalf of Reprise in the proceedings before the LD or in the appeal proceedings. That it is open to a party to guard against such procedural uncertainties is demonstrated by <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/g040002ex1.pdf">G 2/04</a>:</span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span lang="EN-GB">“... it is an accepted principle in proceedings before the EPO that a party may file auxiliary requests. When used appropriately, such requests do not impede the course of proceedings. Rather, they make clear at an early stage what the fallback positions of a party are and give the adversary and the deciding body the opportunity to be prepared as soon as the respective request becomes relevant. This is the case when the preceding preferred request turns out not to be allowed by the deciding body.” (Point [3.2] of the Reasons)</span><br />
<span lang="EN-GB">“If, when filing an appeal, there is a justifiable legal uncertainty as to how the law is to be interpreted in respect of the question of who the correct party to the proceedings is, it is legitimate that the appeal is filed in the name of the person whom the person acting considers, according to his interpretation, to be the correct party, and at the same time, as an auxiliary request, in the name of a different person who might, according to another possible interpretation, also be considered the correct party to the proceedings.” (Point II of the Order)</span></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">(d) The Board would not wish to allow purely formal procedural requirements to get in the way of dealing with the substantive issues. However, the correct constitution of proceedings is not a matter of pure formality. It is important that the correct persons are parties to the proceedings so that they are bound by the decision as a matter of <i>res judicata</i> and can, for example, if appropriate, be made the subject of an order to pay costs. Even though Allergan’s representatives stated that they had power of attorney to act also on behalf of Reprise, no formal application in the name of Reprise to join the proceedings was made. In <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t041178ex1.pdf">T 1178/04</a> [46] the decision was reached that the wrong parties were present in the appeal proceedings (a transfer of the opposition status was held by the Board to have been invalid), with the result that the Board felt compelled to remit the case. In <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t091982eu1.pdf">T 1982/09</a>, the factual situation was similar in that the Board decided that the opponent status had not been validly transferred but the Board nevertheless felt able to continue the appeal proceedings. But there the representative had reacted appropriately at an earlier stage of the appeal proceedings to this possibility and both parties wanted the Board to go on and decide the substantive issues. The correct opponent was “deemed to have acquired the appellant status” from the wrong opponent as a consequence of the Board having decided that the opponent status was not validly transferred (point 2.2 of the reasons). That is not the position here.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">(e) All these considerations point away from allowing Allergan’s request.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[8.4] The Board is in any event not convinced by the central plank of the Allergan’s argument based on the construction of R 14(3). This states:</span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span lang="EN-GB">“Upon staying the proceedings for grant, or thereafter, the EPO may set a date on which it intends to resume the proceedings for grant, regardless of the stage reached in the national proceedings instituted under paragraph 1. It shall communicate this date to the third party, the applicant and any other party. …”</span></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">Allergan argues that since this rule refers to “the third party, the applicant and any other party” (“Beteiligte” in the German version of the rule), it must mean that any person may apply for a resumption of the grant proceedings. As to this, the opening wording of the rule (“Upon staying the proceedings for grant, or thereafter, the EPO may set a date on which it intends to resume the proceedings for grant …”) is in fact perfectly general, and indeed appears to contemplate that the EPO may act on its motion (as happened in <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t820146ep1.pdf">T 146/82</a>. The Board is not sure who is intended by the reference to “any other party” (see also the reference to “the applicant and any other party” in R 14(2)). In this the Board was not helped by the fact that Allergan’s submission came out of the blue. But it is not necessary to reach any conclusion because it does not follow from this statement about the parties who must be informed about the date of resumption of the grant proceedings that any person has the right to apply for such resumption, and certainly not in the absence of the applicant as party. It also does not mean, as Allergan argued, that the interests of a party such as Allergan (a contractual transferee of the application) will never be taken into account when considering whether to resume grant proceedings: the Board sees no reason why it should not be relevant for the EPO to take such interests into account if it becomes appropriate to weigh up the various interests. (In this respect it should be noted that Ferring reserved the right to argue that it is never appropriate to weigh up the competing interests).</span><br />
<span lang="EN-GB"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[8.5] <span style="color: #ff6600;">For all of these reasons, therefore, and even on the assumption that Allergan’s amendment to its case were to be admitted […], the Board refused to continue the appeal proceedings with the hearing of Allergan’s request, as a “third party”, for immediate resumption of the grant proceedings.</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-GB">Referral of further questions to the EBA<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[9.1] In reaction to the Board’s indication that it did not intend to continue with the appeal proceedings by hearing Allergan’s request to resume the grant proceedings, Allergan filed a request to refer two further questions to the EBA, as follows:</span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span lang="EN-GB">“Can a party other than the applicant (<i>Beteiligter</i>) make a R 14(3) request?</span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span lang="EN-GB">If the answer to question 2 is no, then if a patent application is transferred during stay of proceedings for grant how are the interests of a good faith recipient of the patent application to be heard by the EPO?”</span></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[9.2] It was said that answers to these questions were needed because a point of law of fundamental importance arose. As to the first question, the issue has arisen not only in the context of the exercise by the Board of its discretion as to the handling of the appeal proceedings but also in the particular and unusual circumstances of the case. As already pointed out, these have arisen partly because the precautionary step of filing auxiliary requests in the name of Reprise was never taken. The Board does not need the answer to such a question in order to deal with this procedural situation. The same answer can be given in relation to the second question which Allergan asks to be referred, which essentially is a rhetorical question in support of its argument on the first question. As stated above (point [8.4], at the end), the refusal to register a transferee as applicant while the proceedings are stayed does not mean that the economic interests of the transferee cannot be taken into account. It is also no undue burden for the transferor to make the transferee’s interests heard while the grant proceedings are stayed. The Board would also point out that (a) it is not the purpose of a reference under A 112(1) for the EBA to give answers to open procedural questions framed in this way and (b) the question is in any event hypothetical since the status of Allergan as “a good faith recipient of the patent application” (whatever this may mean) is not established and is clearly a matter of dispute so far as Ferring is concerned.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-GB">Order </span><span style="text-align: justify;">[…]</span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"> <span style="color: #ff6600;">The registration of Allergan as applicant is ordered to be reversed. </span>[…]<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">Should you wish to download the whole decision, just click <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/j120017eu1.pdf">here</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">The file wrapper can be found <a href="https://register.epo.org/espacenet/application?number=EP03781836">here</a>.</span></i></div>
orhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07992102028406713066noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-596985668197250752013-12-23T02:01:00.000+01:002013-12-23T02:01:00.563+01:00T 158/12 – No Switching<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh1gFXQ-e2RBES8Th778O4lkPfObMoeTEfWSq0JjSV_JWO28l9vKMcKSbOQ6LQq5ZA10CwIc5dnt7Lvi-snkZm4CQlpOnKLg_fNDSJx3vghqD20ZoxDSIt1ydESzw4j3-gzl2GXNPrhlI8/s1600/Ingres_PaolaFrancesco.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh1gFXQ-e2RBES8Th778O4lkPfObMoeTEfWSq0JjSV_JWO28l9vKMcKSbOQ6LQq5ZA10CwIc5dnt7Lvi-snkZm4CQlpOnKLg_fNDSJx3vghqD20ZoxDSIt1ydESzw4j3-gzl2GXNPrhlI8/s400/Ingres_PaolaFrancesco.png" width="315" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i><span style="color: #999999;">Board member Gianciotto is about to draw t</span></i><i><span style="color: #999999;">he Article 12(4) RPBA sword ...</span></i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">This is an examination appeal.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">Board 3.2.06 had to deal with the question of whether the applicant could be allowed to switch from one invention to the other.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[2.1] Claim 1 corresponds to originally filed claim 8 which formed part of the second invention during search. <span style="color: #ff6600;">Claim 1 with this exact wording was withdrawn during the examination proceedings</span> after having been submitted with the applicant’s response of 6 May 2011.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[2.2] According to Article 12(4) RPBA, the Board can hold inadmissible facts, evidence or requests which could have been presented or were not admitted in the first instance proceedings. In order to decide how to exercise this discretionary power, the Board reviewed the course of the examination proceedings.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[2.3] When entering the European phase of the proceedings, the appellant chose to base the prosecution of the application on the first invention and submitted (with letter of 25 March 2009) amended claims 1 to 10 wherein claim 1 further specified the oxygen storage component. The system of claim 8 was defined as comprising the article according to claim 1 and an on-board diagnostic system. That it was the applicant’s own volition to pursue the first invention was emphasized by the arguments submitted therewith that the inventive concept related to the use of a sufficient amount of an oxygen storage component having a pre-selected deactivation temperature range that coincided with a deactivation temperature range at which the hydrocarbon conversion of the precious metal component decreased below a pre-selected value, which concept underlies the first invention. Thus, the appellant deliberately chose the first invention to be the subject of examination.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[2.4] <span style="color: #ff6600;">For this reason, the Board concludes that the first invention was chosen voluntarily for being the subject of examination and therefore, a claim directed to the second invention is not to be examined in this application. Since the main request relates to the second invention, the request is therefore not admissible.</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[2.5] <span style="color: #ff6600;">The appellant’s view was that there was no Article or Rule in the EPC which would prevent the applicant from changing from one invention to another – if they were searched – during examination.</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[2.6] <span style="color: #ff6600;">Contrary to such view, the Board considers that the Articles and Rules present in the EPC however form a statutory system which however, read together, clearly leads to this conclusion:</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<ul>
<li>A 82 requires the European patent application to relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept.</li>
</ul>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span lang="EN-GB">→</span><span lang="EN-GB"> This is a basic principle underlying the EPC.</span></blockquote>
<ul>
<li>R 137(2) gives the applicant a right to amend the application once of its own volition after receipt of the first communication. According to R 137(3), no further amendment may be made without the consent of the Examining Division (ED).</li>
</ul>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span lang="EN-GB">→ </span><span lang="EN-GB">In such a way an application which includes various (groups of) inventions can be pursued on the basis of the desired (group of) invention.</span></blockquote>
<ul>
<li>A 76 states the possibility to file divisional applications.</li>
</ul>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span lang="EN-GB">→ </span><span lang="EN-GB">In such a way the further (groups of) inventions can be pursued.</span></blockquote>
<ul>
<li>A 94(1) states that the request for examination of the European patent application shall not be deemed to be filed until “the” examination fee has been paid.</li>
</ul>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span lang="EN-GB">→ </span><span lang="EN-GB">It is only possible to pay one fee for the examination.</span></blockquote>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[2.7] Hence, there is no provision which would allow the payment of multiple examination fees for a patent application. This is also in line with the possibilities to</span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<ul>
<li>either argue in the examination proceedings that unity exists – which should be done in reply to the first communication to the ED;</li>
<li>or to file divisional applications which allow the principle of one invention – one examination (and one examination fee for one examination proceedings) to be maintained.</li>
</ul>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #ff6600; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Thus, it is clear that only one examination is to be carried out in respect of one application – and in respect of one examination fee being paid.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[2.8] <span style="color: #ff6600;">Accordingly, after having chosen one invention (or one group of inventions) to be the subject of examination, this choice cannot be altered once examination of that invention has commenced.</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[2.9] This systematic approach based on the statutory provisions of the EPC is, contrary to the appellant’s view, confirmed in <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/g920002ep1.html">G 2/92</a>. It is true that opinion <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/g920002ep1.html">G 2/92</a> primarily concerns the non-payment of further search fees and states in its Headnote that “an applicant who fails to pay the further search fees for a non-unitary application … cannot pursue that application for the subject-matter in respect of which no search fees have been paid. Such an applicant must file a divisional application in respect of such subject-matter if he wishes to seek protection for it.” The opinion is based on the principle “that in order to proceed to grant a European patent application is required to contain claims relating to one invention only” (Reasons, item 2). However, the Enlarged Board’s opinion goes on further and additionally considers the examination stage and sets out (Reasons, item 2, second paragraph) that “At the examination stage, having regard to the requirement of unity of invention and the fact that only one examination fee can be paid for each application, clearly only one invention in each application is to be examined for conformity with the patentability and other requirements of the EPC.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"> </span> </div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[2.10] Thus, although the appellant cited <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/g920002ep1.html">G 2/92</a> to support its view that this opinion exclusively concerned the prohibition of pursuing a non-unitary application in respect of subject-matter in respect of which no search fees had been paid and did not concern the examination procedure and subject-matter for which the search fees have been paid, the scope of <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/g920002ep1.html">G 2/92</a> extends – as explained <i>supra </i>– beyond the search stage in highlighting the principle of one fee for one procedural step also at the examining stage. Hence, the appellant’s view that the examination of an application could be based on more than one invention is not supported by this opinion of the Enlarged Board of Appeal.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[2.11] Further, the appellant was also of the view that the subject-matter defined in claims 1 and 8 as originally filed anyway concerned a single inventive concept since one independent claim (claim 8) encompassed the other (claim 1) based on the premise that claim 8 as filed inherently had all the features of claim 1, in particular since the deactivation was allegedly present as a material characteristic. Additionally, according to the appellant, claims 1 and 8 as originally filed afforded alternative solutions to the problem of the invention which might not be covered by a single claim in accordance with R 43(2)(c), and therefore did not contravene the provisions of unity (A 82).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[2.12] Such view cannot be accepted however, since when assessing the inventive concept underlying the subject-matter of claim 1 as originally filed, it is related to a diesel engine exhaust treatment article and a selected oxygen storage component defined in relation to a precious metal component. Claim 8 on the other hand is related to an exhaust system, not just the exhaust treatment article, and does not specify any particular characteristics of the components as in claim 1, and in fact not even a precious metal component. Likewise, claim 8 requires a pair of lambda sensors, whereas claim 1 puts no such restriction on the system. It is thus evident that one claim does not encompass the other. This was indeed why two search fees were requested and paid.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[2.13] The appellant further argued that it was unable to maintain the (present) main request during examination, because the ED had stated the application would then be “immediately” refused. Reference was made to the communication of 1 June 2011.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[2.14] The Board disagrees. Although the ED stated in the above referenced communication (which was issued in preparation of the oral proceedings) that “In the absence of any valid claims, the applicant has to count on an immediate refusal” as a consequence of pursuing the second invention, the ultimate refusal of a request – based on a reasoned decision – provides an appropriate basis for an appeal.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[2.15] <span style="color: #ff6600;">There were anyway several possibilities of defending such a request in the first instance proceedings in both its written phase and also during the oral proceedings. The likelihood of receiving a refusal may indeed have been high, but the applicant’s withdrawal of the request prevented the ED from taking a decision on that request. The request could have been filed as an auxiliary request for example.</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[2.16] For these reasons, the main request is not admitted into the proceedings as it should have been presented in the first instance proceedings such that it became the subject of a decision. Due to these reasons, the Board exercised its discretion under Article 12(4) RPBA not to admit the request into the proceedings.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">Should you wish to download the whole decision, just click <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t120158eu1.pdf">here</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">The file wrapper can be found <a href="https://register.epo.org/espacenet/application?number=EP07799034">here</a>.</span></i></div>
orhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07992102028406713066noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-29167202052587626642013-12-20T02:01:00.000+01:002013-12-26T21:47:59.433+01:00T 2235/12 – Taken By Surprise<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[3] In reply to the citation by the Examining Division
(ED) of two new documents on 13 March 2012, the appellant submitted in the fax
of 14 March 2012, i.e. one day prior to the oral proceedings (OPs) before the ED,
that “in view of the very late citation of new references” it was “simply
impossible to study the newly cited prior art D4 and D5 and get appropriate
instructions from the US-client (via a US-law firm) within this extremely short
time of one working day”. The appellant therefore requested to “set a new date
for the hearing”, “to give all parties … sufficient time to review newly cited
documents and discuss/prepare proper amendments”, see statement of grounds and
letter of 14 March 2012.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[3.1] Given these facts, the board considers it
necessary to examine whether the appellant’s right to be heard was violated
because the subject of the proceedings had changed shortly before the date set
for the OPs and whether the ED should have cancelled these proceedings and
fixed a new date for them.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[3.2] Under A 113(1) EPC 1973, decisions may
only be based on grounds or evidence on which the parties concerned have had an
opportunity to present their comments. The applicant therefore has the right to
react to objections raised by the ED. This can be done by providing comments or
by amending requests in order to take into account the objection raised by the
division.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[3.3] R 71a(1) EPC 1973 (corresponding to R
116(1)) specifies that, when issuing the summons to OPs, the EPO shall draw
attention to the points which in its opinion need to be discussed for the
purposes of the decision to be taken. At the same time a final date for making
written submissions in preparation for the OPs shall be fixed. New facts and
evidence presented after that date need not be considered, unless admitted on
the grounds that the subject of the proceedings has changed (see also German
and French versions of R 116(1): “soweit sie nicht wegen einer Änderung des dem
Verfahren zugrunde liegenden Sachverhalts zuzulassen sind”, “à moins qu’il ne
convienne de les admettre en raison d’un changement intervenu dans les faits de
la cause.”) This provision has to be interpreted in the light of A 113(1) EPC
1973 so as to give the applicant an opportunity to submit comments or, if
necessary, make amendments to its requests in view of the points to which the
EPO drew attention. This principle is also reflected in the Guidelines for
Examination, E-III 8.6, in the version of April 2010, stating that the parties “should
always be given the opportunity to submit amendments intended to overcome
objections raised by the Division which depart from a previously notified
opinion.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[3.4] In the present case […] the ED summoned
to OPs indicating that claims 1 and 15 lacked clarity and that the
subject-matter of these claims lacked novelty in view of D3. Following the
submission of amended claims a telephone consultation took place, the results
of which were communicated to the appellant and read as follows:</span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">“The first examiner informed the representative
that the current claim 1 lacked clarity concerning the the (sic) definition of
the building blocks of the sensing system. The first examiner asked the
representative to submit an improved version of claim 1, in order to overcome
that deficiency.”</span></blockquote>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">The appellant could therefore conclude that the
objection with respect to lack of novelty in view of D3 had been overcome and
that only clarity would have to be discussed in the OPs.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">As a consequence, the appellant submitted
amended claims asserting that they were “clarified as proposed by the Examiner”
and expressed the view that it should be possible to cancel the OPs. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #ff6600; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Two days before the OPs the ED
informed the appellant that the date for OPs was maintained, introduced two
additional documents D4 and D5 into the procedure, and objected that the
subject-matter of claim 1 was not new in view of D4. The next day, the
appellant requested postponement of the OPs in view of this new objection.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #ff6600; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">The board notes that the new
objection was not related to any of the points which had been indicated in the
summons. In particular, a discussion of novelty based on D4 could not be
expected after amendments had been filed and discussed in the telephone
interview. Hence, the subject of the OPs had changed.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[3.5] Under these circumstances, the appellant
should have been given an adequate opportunity to react to the new objection
either by submitting comments or by amending its requests.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[3.6] The ED’s argument that the appellant had
sufficient time for a thorough consideration of D4 and D5 and that the
appellant could not possibly be surprised by this decision is not convincing.
The representative was given one working day to get acquainted with D4 and D5,
contact its client and – if necessary – provide amendments overcoming the
objections. <span style="color: #ff6600;">The board accepts the argument of the
appellant’s representative that it was impossible in view of the short
timeframe to get appropriate instructions from the client.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[3.7] The board notes that the appellant’s
representative deliberately chose not to attend the OPs on 15 March 2012. He
also repeatedly expressed in writing the wish to avoid OPs. Procedural economy
and legal certainty for third parties require that an applicant should not be
allowed to prevent an ED from carrying out the examination in an efficient
manner, for instance by delaying the decision or postponing the OPs (see also R
71(2) EPC 1973 corresponding to R 115(2)). However, the <span style="color: #ff6600;">circumstances of the present case are exceptional</span>, because two
days before the date of the OPs the ED changed essential facts of the case on
which it had relied in the summons to OPs. Attending the OPs would not have
changed the fact that, in the present case, the timeframe of one working day
was too short for the appellant to get appropriate instructions and to prepare
for OPs which now had a new focus.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[3.8] <span style="color: #ff6600;">Hence,
rejecting the appellant’s request for a postponement of the OPs infringed the
appellant’s right to be heard. </span>Had the appellant been given sufficient
time to react to the new objection, the ED, in dealing with the appellant’s
arguments, could have explained the reasons why it was of the opinion that the
different references to D4 did not constitute a conflation of prior-art
embodiments with the embodiments of the invention and why the schematic drawing
of figure 4 in D4 did disclose the arrangement of the components on a common
substrate. This exchange of arguments could have avoided the necessity to file
an appeal, or would have permitted the board to examine the case in full
knowledge of the first instance’s view on the contentious issues.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[3.9] As a result the board considers
reimbursement of the appeal fee to be equitable by reason of a substantial
procedural violation (R 67 EPC 1973).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">Should you wish to download the
whole decision, just click <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t122235eu1.pdf">here</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">The file wrapper can be found <a href="https://register.epo.org/espacenet/application?number=EP04800627">here</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">This decision has also been
presented on </span></i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">Le blog du droit européen des
brevets <i>(<a href="http://europeanpatentcaselaw.blogspot.fr/2013/08/t223512-pas-le-temps-de-reagir.html">here</a>).</i></span></div>
orhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07992102028406713066noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-76800482470297843842013-12-19T02:01:00.000+01:002013-12-25T21:36:59.611+01:00T 1939/11 – Liquidation<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">This opposition appeal contains an
interesting passage on the party status of the opponents.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[2] An appeal was filed by the joint opponents
DF3 SAS and Cosucra Groupe Warcoing. The respondent requested that a decision
on the party status of DF3 SAS be taken.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">As is shown by D68, a copy of a judgement of
the Tribunal de Commerce d’Amiens, insolvency proceedings (<i>procédure de Liquidation Judiciare <span style="color: #7f7f7f; mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha: 100.0%; mso-style-textfill-fill-color: #7F7F7F; mso-style-textfill-fill-colortransforms: lumm=50000; mso-style-textfill-fill-themecolor: background1; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">[sic]</span> Normale</i>)
were opened against DF3 SAS. According to D68, these proceedings have been
pending until 25 October 2013, ie until after the oral proceedings before the
present board and until after the decision announced therein.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #ff6600; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">An action taken against the
property of an opponent, here une <i>procédure
de Liquidation Judiciare</i> </span><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #7f7f7f; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha: 100.0%; mso-style-textfill-fill-color: #7F7F7F; mso-style-textfill-fill-colortransforms: lumm=50000; mso-style-textfill-fill-themecolor: background1; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">[re-sic]</span></i><span lang="EN-GB"> <i><span style="color: #ff6600;">Normale</span></i><span style="color: #ff6600;"> under
French law against DF3 SAS, does not take away the opponent’s party status (<a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t020696du1.html">T 696/02</a> [7.2]) and does not entail an interruption of the proceedings, R 142 covering
applicants or patent proprietors only.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">Therefore DF3 SAS could validly claim the
status of an appellant until the announcement of the present decision.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">I have presented another decision dealing
with insolvency some years ago (<a href="http://k-slaw.blogspot.fr/2010/04/t-153307-insolvent-yet-alive.html">here</a>).<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">Should you wish to download the
whole decision, just click <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t111939eu1.pdf">here</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">The file wrapper can be found <a href="https://register.epo.org/espacenet/application?number=EP05758958">here</a>.</span></i></div>
orhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07992102028406713066noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-49277722909152423872013-12-18T02:01:00.000+01:002013-12-25T21:36:32.818+01:00T 2532/11 – An Insufficient Link<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">This is a revocation appeal.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">Rather than dealing with the
decision as such, the patent proprietor chose to file a statement of grounds consisting
of several requests and an explanation why they were thought to be novel and
inventive. <o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">The Board was not satisfied:<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-GB">The statement of grounds of appeal<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-GB">The legal framework<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[2.1.1] For an appeal to be admissible, it has
to comply with the requirements of A 108, R 99(2) and R 101(1).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">A 108, third sentence, requires that: </span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">“Within
four months of notification of the decision, a statement setting out the
grounds of appeal shall be filed in accordance with the Implementing
Regulations.”</span></blockquote>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">R 99(2) provides that </span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">“In the statement of
grounds of appeal the appellants shall indicate the reasons for setting aside
the decision impugned, or the extent to which it is to be amended and the facts
and evidence on which the appeal is based”.</span></blockquote>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">R 101(1) provides that </span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">“If the appeal does not
comply with A 106 to A 108, R 97 or R 99, paragraph 1(b) or (c) or paragraph 2,
the Board of Appeal shall reject it as inadmissible”.</span></blockquote>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[2.1.2] As to the content of the statement of
grounds, Article 12(2) RPBA requires that: </span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">“The statement of grounds of appeal
and the reply shall contain a party’s complete case. They shall set out clearly
and concisely the reasons why it is requested that the decision under appeal be
reversed, amended or upheld and should specify expressly all the facts,
arguments and evidence relied on.”</span></blockquote>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-GB">The case law<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[2.2.1] The case law of the Boards of Appeal
has consistently considered it to be incumbent on an appellant, in order to
meet the admissibility requirements, to explain in detail why it considers the
decision under appeal to be wrong, be it entirely or in part, thus imposing a
direct and clear link between the contested decision and the grounds for
appeal.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[2.2.2] In decisions <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/g910009ex1.pdf">G 9/91</a> and <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/g910010ex1.html">G 10/91</a> [18] the
Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) held that “The purpose of the appeal procedure
is mainly to give the losing party the possibility of challenging the decision
of the Opposition Division on its merits”.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
In the French version: “… de
contester le bien-fondé de la décision.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="DE">In the German version: “ … die Entscheidung
sachlich anzufechten.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">The same wording was used in decisions <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/g930004ex1.pdf">G 4/93</a> [5]
and <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/g990001ex1.pdf">G 1/99</a> [6.1].<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #ff6600; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">It is thus clear that the appeal
proceedings <u>aim at contesting a decision</u>.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[2.2.3] In decision <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/g990001ex1.pdf">G 1/99</a> [6.1] the EBA
further pointed out that: </span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">“Indeed, issues outside the subject-matter of the decision under appeal are not part of the appeal.” and that “… within the
limits of what in the subject-matter of the decision under appeal adversely
affects it, it is <u>the appellant who in the notice of appeal determines the
extent to which amendment or cancellation of the decision under appeal is
requested</u>.” (emphasis added by the board).</span></blockquote>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[2.2.4] <span style="color: #ff6600;">It follows
from this that the appeal proceedings are confined to the subject-matter of the
first instance proceedings and therefore that the statement of grounds of
appeal should at least discuss this subject-matter. </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">The need for the above-mentioned link (see
point [2.2.1]) is thus not only confirmed but also clarified in terms of its
closeness.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[2.2.5] The case law further defines the
content of the statement of grounds of appeal in such a way that it must
specify the legal or factual reasons why the impugned decision should be set
aside. The arguments must be clearly and concisely presented to enable the
board (and the other party) to understand immediately why the decision is
alleged to be incorrect, and on which facts the appellant bases its arguments,
without first having to make investigations on their own (see in particular the
decisions <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t830220ep1.html">T 220/83</a>, <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t850213ep1.html">T 213/85</a>, <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t880145ex1.pdf">T 145/88</a>, <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t890169fu1.pdf">T 169/89</a> and <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t081581eu1.pdf">T 1581/08</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[2.2.6] Moreover, it is also established case
law that grounds sufficient for the admissibility of an appeal must be analysed
in detail vis-à-vis the main reasons given for the contested decision (see <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t850213ep1.html">T 213/85</a>; <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t890169fu1.pdf">T 169/89</a>; <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t920045du1.pdf">T 45/92</a> and <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t070570eu1.pdf">T 570/07</a>).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[2.3] The present case in view of the cited
case law<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[2.3.1] <span style="color: #ff6600;">In the
present case, the appellants submitted on 27 December 2011 a document entitled “Statement
of Grounds of Appeal”.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #ff6600; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">It can however be clearly seen
that these submissions do not contain any reference to the impugned decision,
let alone any explanation as to why this decision should be wrong and thus be
set aside.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[2.3.2] The board understands from the content
of said statement that the appellants do not contest the finding of the Opposition
Division (OD) as to:</span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<ul>
<li>the lack of novelty of the main request over
D1d;</li>
<li>the lack of novelty of the third auxiliary
request over D4;</li>
<li>the lack of compliance with R 80 of the
second and fourth auxiliary requests;</li>
<li>the reasons for the late-filing of the first
auxiliary request.</li>
</ul>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[2.3.3] <span style="color: #ff6600;">Thus, none
of the main grounds for revocation of the patent presented in the impugned
decision was addressed in the statement of grounds of appeal.</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #ff6600; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Therefore, by applying the above
cited case law, it should be concluded that the appeal has to be rejected as
inadmissible for lack of compliance with the above-mentioned provisions of the
EPC.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-GB">Newly filed requests<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[2.4.1] <span style="color: #ff6600;">The
question arises whether newly filed requests can be seen as <u>implicit</u>
grounds of appeal, or in other words, whether there is a link between the
decision and the grounds.</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[2.4.2] A statement of grounds of appeal
supported by amended claims may define, at least implicitly, the extent to
which the appellant wishes the decision under appeal to be set aside.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">The issue however is whether the grounds are
understandable and <u>sufficiently linked</u> to the contested decision in
order to form an admissible appeal.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[2.4.3] <span style="color: #ff6600;">The board
is aware of a substantial body of case law where the sufficiency of the grounds
was examined for the question of admissibility in relation to the filing of new
claims. There are several decisions in which a relatively lenient position was
adopted towards the appellants, in the sense that the appeals were deemed to be
admissible if the competent board was able to <u>infer</u> from the particulars
of the case the presumed intentions of the appellant and the probable reasons
underlying its actions, see in particular decisions <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t970162eu1.pdf">T 162/97</a> [1.1.2]; <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t910574eu1.pdf">T 574/91</a>
[1.2]; <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t900729eu1.pdf">T 729/90</a> [1.2]; <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t910563du1.pdf">T 563/91</a> [1.2].</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">In an even broader interpretation, it was held
that an appeal was sufficiently substantiated and that the requirements of A
108, third sentence were satisfied, even though the board did not state any
specific reasons why the contested decision was wrong. The reasoning was that</span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<ul>
<li>there was a change in the subject of the
proceedings due to the filing of new claims together with the statement of
grounds; and that</li>
<li>the statement of grounds set out in detail
why the raised grounds for opposition did not prejudice the maintenance of the
patent as amended on the basis of these new claims (<i>cf</i>. in particular <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t010717du1.pdf">T 717/01</a> [2]; <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t020934eu1.pdf">T 934/02</a> [2], referring to <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/j870902ep1.pdf">J xx/87</a>
[1.4] and <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t870105eu1.pdf">T 105/87</a>).</li>
</ul>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[2.4.4] <span style="color: #ff6600;">In the
board’s view, it is certainly arguable that appeals should be decided primarily
on their substance, and that parties should be given the possibility to argue
their case without overly strict formal requirements. However, procedural
principles have to be considered.</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-GB">The principle of free disposition<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[2.5.1] <span style="color: #ff6600;">Even
assuming that laborious sequences of exercises would tell the reader what the
appellant’s case against the decision might be, such conjecture is exactly what
the statement of appeal is designed to prevent: the purpose of the statement of
grounds, together with the notice of appeal is to define the scope of the
appeal. This definition lies within the discretion of the appellants as a part
of the principle of free disposition.</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[2.5.2] Without prejudice to provisions of A
114, which are of limited application in opposition proceedings, the board of
appeal has the duty to assess whether the appeal is well-founded within the
frame of the case as presented by the appellants but it cannot guess what the
arguments are, let alone, provide arguments in lieu of the appellants.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-GB">The power of the board of appeal<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[2.6.1] <span style="color: #ff6600;">Conversely,
the principle of free disposition does not extend to such a point that it
should allow the appellants to build a new case, disconnected from the case as
it stood during the first instance proceedings, so as to render the decision
under appeal purposeless. <u>The EPC’s provisions do not give the appellants
the power to set aside the decision under appeal of its own volition</u>, which
would obviously be the case if it had the opportunity to modify its requests
beyond the subject-matter of the first instance proceedings. In other words,
the power conferred by A 21(1) to the boards of appeal to review decisions
shall not be transferred to the appellants. </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">In the same way, decision <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t040240du1.pdf">T 240/04</a> [16.3]
already stated as regards new claims not sufficiently connected to the
subject-matter of the one previously filed: <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span lang="DE">“In einer solchen Situation den neuen Antrag
zuzulassen würde einem Patentinhaber praktisch die Möglichkeit geben, nach
Belieben eine Zurückverweisung an die Erstinstanz zu erzwingen. Dies würde den
Einsprechenden benachteiligen und wäre auch nicht verfahrensökonomisch.“</span><span style="text-align: justify;"> </span></blockquote>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">Although the present issue relates to the
admissibility of the appeal and not to the admissibility of new requests, the
obligation to contest the decision of the first instance remains. Whether the
appeal is only supported by new sets of claims or the decision under review has
not been contested in the appeal proceedings, the end effect is the same: the
board and the respondent in the first place are facing a new case which leads
to the issue of remittal, in order to ensure a double degree of jurisdiction.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[2.6.2] <span style="color: #ff6600;">In regard
of all these considerations above, the present board is of the opinion that a
direct link must be maintained between the decision under appeal and the
statement of grounds of appeal.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #ff6600; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">The appellant cannot escape its
obligation to explain why it does not agree with the decision, be it only in
part. The appellant is not correct in its view, because the very nature of
appeal proceedings is and remains the contestation of a decision.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #ff6600; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">This does not mean that the
appellant shall be denied the right to file amended claims, but it must provide
arguments in order to explain what is/are the issue(s) in the decision it
considers to be erroneous and provide arguments and evidence to support its
view. The amendments made to the claims in order to remove the grounds of the
decision under appeal constitute an implicit acceptance of the decision and
therefore cannot be regarded as grounds for appeal in the sense of A 108,
second sentence EPC.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<span lang="EN-GB">The requests of the present case<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[2.7.1] In the present case, as the appellant
confirmed in its latest submissions, the reasons for filing a modified main
request and five auxiliary requests were based on the assumption that the
decision of the OD was right in its findings that the opposed patent as granted
and as modified in the course of first instance proceedings was not novel over
D1 and D4, or as regards auxiliary requests 1, 2 and 4, that these requests
were not formally admissible.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">The aim of the present appeal is thus to gain
an opportunity to get the patent maintained in amended form through new claims
making the revoked patent compliant with the reasons given by the OD, or
through the introduction of new features thus forming different embodiments of
the alleged invention which were never discussed before regarding their
compliance with the requirements of the EPC.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[2.7.2] Accordingly, even when considering the
issue of admissibility in the light of the less strict case law, the board
considers that the statement of grounds of appeal in the present case does not
comply with the above mentioned legal provisions of the EPC.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[2.7.3] <span style="color: #ff6600;">Consequently,
the appeal must be rejected as inadmissible.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">Should you wish to download the
whole decision, just click <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t112532eu1.pdf">here</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">The file wrapper can be found <a href="https://register.epo.org/espacenet/application?number=EP03808928">here</a>.</span></i></div>
orhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07992102028406713066noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-21578393423524921292013-12-17T02:01:00.000+01:002013-12-24T01:05:06.259+01:00T 1510/09 – Possible Origin<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">In this revocation appeal claim 1 of the auxiliary request was directed at “screw caps that can be manufactured (susceptible d’être
fabriquée) by injection” of a certain polyethylene composition.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">The opponent raised a clarity objection.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">***
Translation of <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t091510fu1.pdf">the French original</a> ***<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"> </span> </div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">[8] <span style="color: #ff6600;">The expression “that
can be obtained by” (<i>susceptible d’être
obtenue par</i>) is common in claim drafting. Its purpose is to remove any
ambiguity regarding the nature of the object that is to be protected. The expression
“that can” (<i>susceptible</i>) means
that the object necessarily has to have all the features resulting from that
specific method without limiting the protection to the products obtained by
such a method only. Thus the objection under A 84 is unfounded.</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">Should you wish to download the
whole decision (in French), just click <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t091510fu1.pdf">here</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">The file wrapper can be found <a href="https://register.epo.org/espacenet/application?number=EP01917092">here</a>.</span></i></div>
orhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07992102028406713066noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-23761515567794189172013-12-16T14:10:00.000+01:002013-12-24T01:05:36.899+01:00Changes Ahead<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">As some of you already know, I have very recently been appointed technical member of a Board of appeal. This is both a great honour and an enormous pleasure to me. I wish to thank all of you who have sent their congratulations by e-mail or via the blog.</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<i><br />
</i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Obviously, this appointment means that <span style="color: orange;">I can no longer be an EPC case law blogger.</span></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="color: orange;"><i><br />
</i></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="color: orange;"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Does this mean that the blog will come to an end?</span></i></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<span style="color: orange;"><i><br />
</i></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="color: orange;">Not necessarily. </span>Perhaps some reader(s) would like to continue the work. If so, please let me now by sending me an e-mail (oliver.randl[@]gmail.com).</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<i><br />
</i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">I have three remarks in this respect:</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<i><br />
</i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">First, I think it would be <span style="color: orange;">more reasonable to have a team</span> of bloggers rather than a single person. A one-decision-per-day blog is a heavy workload. I am quite a </span></i><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">bête de somme</span></span><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"> and I think that more reasonable people would want to carry a lighter burden.</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<i><br />
</i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Secondly, I have to warn you that <span style="color: orange;">this work is relatively unrewarding</span>. You will have trouble (the blog even brought me before the disciplinary instances of the epi once) and not much gratification other than some new friends all over Europe (some of which will remain pseudonymous) and the certainty that wherever you go in patent circles some nice fellow will come and tell you that (s)he enjoys the blog. So if you want to do this work, it should be out of love for the case law and the desire to be of service.</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<i><br />
</i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Thirdly, <span style="color: orange;">I would recommend that rather than pursuing K’s Law you start your own blog</span>. This would free you from all the constraints that come from an existing structure. For instance, you might want to abandon the graphical design and have a bright background rather than a black one; this would involve a tremendous amount of work on K’s Law if you intended to maintain the previous 1300+ posts, which would become more or less unreadable on a bright background. So I think it would be wiser to start a new blog and send me the URL, so that I can inform the K’s Law readers about the new offer.</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<i><br />
</i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">If no one comes forward, then the blog will indeed become inactive in a few weeks.</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<i><br />
</i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">All in all, it was quite a pleasure to serve you. I hope that the blog will have made some of you discover the joys of studying the case law. </span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><br />
</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Keep readin’.</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<i><br />
</i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Cheers</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<i><br />
</i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">oliver</span></i></div>
orhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07992102028406713066noreply@blogger.com22tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-48051544124612743902013-12-16T02:01:00.000+01:002013-12-22T19:50:32.392+01:00T 2091/11 – Considering The Context<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">This is an examination appeal. <o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">The Examining Division (ED) refused
the application on the grounds of lack of clarity and insufficient disclosure.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">Claim 1 of the main request read:</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;"><br /></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">Method of setting Reverse Link
Channel Quality Indicator (CQI) Reporting Modes in an access terminal in a
wireless communication system, characterized by:</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<ul>
<li><i style="text-indent: -18pt;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">determining a value for CQIReportingMode; </span></i></li>
<li><i style="text-indent: -18pt;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">and</span></i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; font-family: Symbol; text-indent: -18pt;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt;"> </span></span><i style="text-indent: -18pt;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">setting reporting modes of the access terminal based
on CQIReportingMode value.</span></i></li>
</ul>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">In what follows the Board deals
with the clarity objection:<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[2.1.1] The ED held that the application did
not meet the requirements of A 84, since the term “CQIReportingMode” used in
claim 1 was vague and ambiguous and did not allow the skilled person to
understand the limitations that this term introduced in the scope of the
claims. This also applied to the terms “Single Code Word CQI Reporting Mode”, “Multiple
Code Word CQI Reporting Mode”, and “Single Input and Single Output (SISO) CQI
Reporting Mode” used in the dependent claims […].<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[2.1.2] The board cannot agree with this
finding. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #ff6600; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">It is established case law of the
Boards of Appeal that the meaning of the features of a claim should be clear
for the person skilled in the art from the wording of the claim alone (see e.g.
<a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/g040001ex1.pdf">G 1/04</a> [6.2]). In this regard, it is worth noting that a patent application
(and thus also its claims) is addressed to a skilled reader and that therefore
its context has to be taken into account when assessing the clarity of its
claims.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"> </span> </div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">The present application is addressed to a
skilled reader in the field of wireless communication systems […]. <span style="color: #ff6600;">From the wording of the claims alone, the reader skilled
in that field would understand that</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<ul>
<li><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">channel
quality indicators (CQIs) related to the reverse link of a wireless
communication system are to be reported by an access terminal (see preamble of
claims 1, 3, and 5);</span></li>
<li><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">the
modes of the access terminal for such reporting are to be set in the access
terminal (see preamble of claims 1, 3, and 5);</span></li>
<li><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">the
setting is done based on a particular value for the respective reporting mode,
called “CQIReportingMode” (see characterising portion of claims 1, 3, and 5);</span></li>
<li><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">the
possible reporting modes are modes which are called “Single Code Word CQI
Reporting Mode”, “Multiple Code Word CQI Reporting Mode”, and “Single Input and
Single Output (SISO) CQI Reporting Mode” (see claims 2, 4, and 6).</span></li>
</ul>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #ff6600; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">The board takes the view that the
objected term “CQIReportingMode” may only be interpreted by the skilled reader
as a mode for reporting channel quality information. That was also the
interpretation “guessed” by the ED in the first-instance proceedings […]. But
in the end, for whatever reasons, it was not taken into account in the clarity
analysis. Hence, the board concludes that the expression “CQIReportingMode” is
neither too vague and ambiguous nor renders the limitations of the claimed
scope unclear.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[2.1.3] Consequently, the subject-matter of the
claims, i.e. the matter for which protection is sought, is considered to be
sufficiently clear for assessing novelty and inventive step, as implicitly
confirmed by the novelty analysis performed by the ED […], and for establishing
the scope of protection sought. For these reasons, the board holds that the
present claims are clear within the meaning of A 84. […]<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[2.3] In conclusion, the grounds for refusal […]
are considered to be overcome with regard to the main request. Consequently,
the decision under appeal is to be set aside.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">Should you wish to download the
whole decision, just click <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t112091eu1.pdf">here</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">The file wrapper can be found <a href="https://register.epo.org/espacenet/application?number=EP06827064">here</a>.</span></i></div>
orhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07992102028406713066noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-57374844022857211982013-12-13T02:01:00.000+01:002013-12-20T00:11:19.450+01:00T 1451/10 – Combinations<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">In <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t071511eu1.pdf">T 1511/07</a> we read:</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span lang="EN-US">[2.1] According to Claim 1 the weight ratio of the citric and lactic acids to calcium hydroxide is from 1:1 to 5:1. This ratio defines a new sub-range which emerges from a combination of the lower value of the broadest range of from 1:1 to 10:1 with the upper value of the especially preferred range of from 2.5:1 to 5:1 as disclosed in the last two lines at page 3 of the application as filed (represented by the WO-publication). This range was combined with the especially preferred range of 1:2 to 2:1 for the weight ratio of citric to lactic acid disclosed at page 3, lines 30/31 of the WO-publication.</span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: #ff6600; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Although the selection of explicitly disclosed borderline values defining several (sub)ranges, in order to form a new (narrower) sub range, is not contestable under A 123(2) when the ranges belong to the same list, the combination of an individual range from this list with another individual range emerging from a second list of ranges and relating to a different feature is not considered to be disclosed in the application as filed, unless there is a clear pointer to such a combination.</span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span lang="EN-US">There is, however, no indication in the WO-publication which unambiguously points to the combination of the weight ratio of 1:1 to 5:1 for the citric and lactic acids to the alkaline calcium source with the weight ratio of 1:2 to 2:1 for the citric to lactic acid.</span><br />
<span lang="EN-US">The amendment to Claim 1 is therefore an inadmissible combination from two lists and contravenes A 123(2).</span></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey;">In the present case, the amendment under consideration was somewhat similar but the outcome was not the same.</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">Claim 1 of the main request (claim 1 as granted ; the amendments with respect to claim 1 as filed are highlighted):</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><span lang="EN-US">A precipitated silica characterized by</span></i> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><span lang="DA" style="mso-ansi-language: DA; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">BET: 350 - 550 m²/g</span></i> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><span lang="DA" style="mso-ansi-language: DA; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">DBP number: <s>320</s>350 - 400 g/100 g</span></i> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">D<sub>50</sub>: 5 - 15 </span></i><i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">µm, and</span></i> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><span lang="EN-US">tamped density: </span></i><i><span lang="EN-US">20 - <s>90</s>70 g/l.</span></i></blockquote>
</div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">The opponent raised an objection under A 123(2) and cited </span></i><i style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey;"><a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t071511eu1.pdf">T 1511/07</a></span></i><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey;">.</span></i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;"><br /></span></i></div>
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">*** Translation of <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t101451du1.pdf">the German original</a> ***<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"> </span> </div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[2.1] Claim 1 of the main request has been amended in a twofold way with respect to claim 1 as originally disclosed: The range of the DBP values was limited from 320-400 g/100g to 350-400 g/100g; simultaneously the range of the tamped density was limited from 20-90 g/l to 20-70 g/l.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">The DBP value of 350 g/100g and the tamped density value of 70 g/l are disclosed on page 2, lines 13-15 of the originally filed documents, where preferred ranges for the DBP value (350-380 g/100g) and for the tamped density (60-70 g/l) are cited. Thus, in the claim as amended what is claimed is a combination of a general range with the end point of a preferred range.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">Each of these amendments as such is allowable (see <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t031197eu1.pdf">T 1197/03</a> [3.1] and <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t980925eu1.pdf">T 925/98</a> [2]).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #ff6600; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">However, there is no reference in the originally filed documents to the combination of the ranges that have been amended as above. Thus, the situation appears to correspond to [the situation] that had been found to be inadmissible in view of A 123(2) in <span style="color: black;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey;"><a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t071511eu1.pdf">T 1511/07</a></span></span> [2.1, last paragraph].<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #ff6600; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">However, the Board is of the opinion that decision <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t071511eu1.pdf">T 1511/07</a> cannot be applied to the present case, for the following reasons. The application […] on which [this decision] was concerned a metastable complex that was formed by an interaction between calcium hydroxide and a mixture of citric and lactic acid. This originally claimed subject-matter was not characterised by any parameters such as proportions or mixing ratios (</span><i><span lang="EN-US" style="color: #ff6600; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Mengenanteile oder Mischungsverhältnisse</span></i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #ff6600; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">) of the components. In view of these circumstances the Board in <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t071511eu1.pdf">T 1511/07</a> considered that the amendment of the claim consisting in the introduction of two preferred ranges for the mixing ratios of the lactic and citric acid with respect to each other and with respect to the calcium source […] was admissible, but not the […] combination of two limited ranges of mixing ratios which had not been referred to in the original application.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #ff6600; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">In the present case, however, the claimed subject-matter was already characterised by four parameter ranges, two of which have remained unamended and two of which were limited. Thus there was no new characterisation of subject-matter by means of parameter ranges derived from the application, the combination of which was not found in the original application. […]<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[2.3] There manifestly is no extension of the scope of protection.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[2.4] Thus the main request […] fulfils the requirements of A 123(2) and (3).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">Should you wish to download the whole decision (in German), just click <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t101451du1.pdf">here</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">The file wrapper can be found <a href="https://register.epo.org/espacenet/application?number=EP03015916">here</a>.</span></i></div>
orhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07992102028406713066noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-76896183318027072362013-12-12T02:01:00.000+01:002013-12-19T02:07:15.899+01:00Interpretational Spotlight: “Half Dried”<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">In this revocation appeal, claim 1 of the main request before the Board read:</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><span lang="EN-GB">A production process of a hydrophilic crosslinked polymer, comprising the steps of polymerizing an aqueous solution including a hydrophilic monomer and a crosslinking agent to obtain a hydrogel crosslinked polymer, and drying the hydrogel crosslinked polymer, thus obtaining the hydrophilic polymer, with the step of drying the hydrogel crosslinked polymer comprising the steps of:</span></i><br />
<i><span lang="EN-GB">(i) carrying out a first</span></i><i><span lang="EN-GB">-</span></i><i><span lang="EN-GB">step drying of hydrogel crosslinked polymer obtained by the polymerization in a static state to obtain a half</span></i><i><span lang="EN-GB">-</span></i><i><span lang="EN-GB">dried product, until it becomes possible to disintegrate an aggregate of the particulate hydrogel crosslinked polymer; then<o:p></o:p></span></i><br />
<i><span lang="EN-GB">(ii) disintegrating the half</span></i><i><span lang="EN-GB">-</span></i><i><span lang="EN-GB">dried product obtained by the first</span></i><i><span lang="EN-GB">-</span></i><i><span lang="EN-GB">step drying into a particle size of 20 mm or less; and then<o:p></o:p></span></i><br />
<i><span lang="EN-GB">(iii)carrying out a second</span></i><i><span lang="EN-GB">-</span></i><i><span lang="EN-GB">step drying of the half</span></i><i><span lang="EN-GB">-</span></i><i><span lang="EN-GB">dried product having a particle size of 20 mm or less in a stirred state and/or a fluidized state.</span></i></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">The Board dealt with the question whether this claim was based on an inadmissible extension:<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[2] Claim 1 of the main request corresponds to claim 1 as granted, which, apart from the insertion of the term “half-dried”, resulted from a rewording of claim 1 as originally filed. It is not disputed that any difference in meaning between claim 1 as granted and claim 1 as originally filed could only result from the definition that the product resulting from drying step (i) is a “half-dried” product. It is also not disputed that the term “half-dried product” as such is only disclosed in the examples of the application as filed, the details of which are not given in claim 1 as granted. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #ff6600; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Hence, the question to be answered is whether the introduction of the term “half-dried product” into claim 1 results in technical information that could not be directly and unambiguously derived from the application as filed. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">In particular whether the introduction of the term “half-dried” amounts to an undue generalization of the disclosure of the examples of the application as filed, as found by the Opposition Division and argued by the [opponents].<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[3] Normally, terms used in a claim should be given their ordinary meaning in the context of that claim; in case of unclarity, the disclosure of the patent may be taken into account, ruling out interpretations that are illogical or do not make technical sense. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #ff6600; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">The wording “half-dried” by its nature does not provide an exact quantitative definition of the proportion of water removed after the first drying step, in particular it does not indicate that exactly 50 % of the water has been removed. It rather expresses the general idea that the first drying step leads to a product which is semi-, partly, not fully dried.</span><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[4] From the context of claim 1, according to which the boundary between the first drying step (i) and the disintegration step (ii) is defined as the point at which it is possible to disintegrate the aggregate of the hydrogel crosslinked polymer resulting from drying step (i), it is also clear that the above indicated meaning of “half-dried” <span style="color: #ff6600;">does not provide any precise restriction on the claimed subject-matter with regard to the proportion of water removed during the first drying step. </span>This view is supported by the disclosure of the invention in the paragraph bridging pages 4 and 5, on page 5, lines 25-27 and in the first paragraph of page 7 of the application as filed.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[5] It can be accepted that the amount of water removed until aggregates have formed and can be disintegrated may depend on many factors, in particular on the chemical nature of the polymer and its structure, and therefore will not necessarily be exactly 50% of the water originally present. This is consistent with the information provided in the first full paragraph of page 5 of the original application, according to which the water content of the hydrogel crosslinked polymer subjected to the first drying step usually has a water content in the range of 50-80 wt%. It can also be deduced from the information given in the paragraph bridging pages 5 and 6 of the application as filed, where it is indicated that hydrogel crosslinked polymers obtained in the course of the first drying step should not have a water content higher than 25 wt.%, as it would result in a difficult disintegration of the polymer particles.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[6] The above indicated interpretation of the term “half-dried” is also consistent with the use, on page 5, line 10 of the application as filed, of the expression “in the midway of drying” which describes the point in time in the process of drying when aggregates are formed. It is also in line with the use of that term in the various examples and comparative examples of the application as filed for describing different situations, corresponding to various proportions of water removed after the first drying step, which are all much higher than 50%.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[7] <span style="color: #ff6600;">It follows from the above that the term “half-dried product” as used in the examples of the application as filed merely expresses the general idea that the first drying step leads to a product that is semi-, partly, or not fully dried, or, in other words, still contains some noteworthy amount of water, and that it is not associated with any specific water content of the polymer.</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[8] The [opponents’] argument that comparative example 1 of the patent in suit would now fall within the ambit of claim 1, as the term half-dried also allows content of water after the first drying step as high as 20,9 wt%, fails to convince. In view of the use of the same expression “half-dried product” in the examples and comparative example 1 of the application as filed, and the indication in the various passages on pages 5 and 6 cited above of the amounts of water usually present in the hydrogel crosslinked polymer before and after the first drying step, it is already apparent that <span style="color: #ff6600;">the very use of the expression “half-dried” in the application as filed is not decisive in determining whether an embodiment falls within the ambit of original claim 1 or not. </span>The decisive point is the formation of aggregates that may be disintegrated, which information was present both in the original claims as well as in the claims as granted, and which is therefore not open to clarity objections as raised by the [opponents]. The method described in comparative example 1 does not qualify as an embodiment of either claim 1 as filed or claim 1 as granted by virtue of the fact that the “half-dried” polymer was not disintegrated and dried according to steps ii) and iii) of present claim 1.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[9] <span style="color: #ff6600;">It follows from the above that the result of the introduction of the term “half-dried” in claim 1 as originally filed is not a claim 1 as granted that comprises technical information not directly and unambiguously derivable from the application as filed. It does not change the meaning of the claim and it does not allow scope for any interpretation extending beyond the teaching of the application as filed. </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">Decisions <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t940792fu1.pdf">T 792/94</a> and <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t021067eu1.pdf">T 1067/02</a> cited by the [opponents], which concern a situation where the meaning of the claim could be held to have been changed by insertion of an ambiguous feature, are therefore of no relevance for the present case.</span> </div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[10] Hence, the Board comes to the conclusion that the subject-matter of claim 1 as granted, i.e. claim 1 of the present main request, does not extend beyond the content of the application as filed.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">Should you wish to download the whole decision (T 860/09), just click <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t090860eu1.pdf">here</a>.</span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">The file wrapper can be found <a href="https://register.epo.org/espacenet/application?number=EP98123937">here</a>.</span></i></div>
orhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07992102028406713066noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-41307543206248608862013-12-11T02:01:00.000+01:002013-12-17T23:39:54.873+01:00T 1487/09 – Disruptive Forces<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">This is an examination appeal.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">Claim 29 of the main request read:<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><span lang="EN-US">A method of imparting
disruptive forces onto a target surface (57), comprising:<br /> </span></i><i><span lang="EN-US">using a moisture
output to dynamically place a first layer of moisture in form of fluid
particles and/or mist above a plurality of points of the target surface so that
different parts of the first layer of moisture are simultaneously disposed over
different ones of the plurality of points; and<br /> </span></i><i><span lang="EN-US">automatically scanning
electromagnetic energy via a scanner relative to the moisture output being
attached to a scanning housing of the scanner, the electromagnetic energy being
scanned by a motor assembly for scanning an optical fiber of an electromagnetic
energy output or by reflectors and focusing optics or dynamically controlled
deflectors for scanning collimated or non collimated electromagnetic energy
above a plurality of points of the target surface; whereby at least portions of
the electromagnetic energy above the plurality of points are at least partly
absorbed by the moisture above the plurality of points.</span></i></blockquote>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">The Board found this claim to be
unpatentable under A 53(c):<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[2.1] Independent claim 29 seeks protection for
a method for imparting disruptive forces onto a target surface.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">Although the claim does not explicitly mention
the nature of the target surface, the disclosure of the patent application as a
whole makes clear that said target surface may include hard and soft tissues
which are part of the human or animal body. As some examples of such tissues,
inner vital organs of the body such as the heart, the liver, the kidney and the
brain are given […].<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #ff6600; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">It follows that the method
according to claim 29 encompasses embodiments in which disruptive forces are
imparted on such vital organs. Therefore, these embodiments are associated with
an invasive step involving a substantial physical intervention on the body
which requires professional medical expertise to be carried out and which
entails a substantial health risk even when carried out with the required professional
care and expertise. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">Moreover, paragraphs [0057], [0061] and [0063]
for example, explicitly refer to preferred embodiments which involve the
delivery of medication to a patient.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #ff6600; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">For these reasons, in accordance
with decision <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/g070001ex1.pdf">G 1/07</a> [order 1 and 2a; point 4.1], the Board considers that such
embodiments are excluded from patentability as methods for treatment of the
human or animal body by surgery and therapy pursuant to A 53(c). A claim which
comprises a step encompassing such embodiments cannot be left to encompass
them.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"> </span> </div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[2.2] <span style="color: #ff6600;">As regards
the appellant’s argument that claim 29 does not include any feature that
constitutes a method step for treatment of a human body by surgery, the Board
notes that it is not decisive whether such features are explicitly defined in
the claim, as long as the subject-matter of the claim encompasses embodiments
which constitute such method steps.</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #ff6600; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">In order to establish whether
said embodiments are encompassed in the claimed method, not only the wording of
the claim is of importance. Rather, the description and the figures are also to
be considered. As a matter of fact, the usual practice is that particular
embodiments of a claimed invention are only disclosed in detail in the
description and drawings.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[2.3] Hence, the main request cannot be allowed
as it does not comply with A 53(c).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">The applicant then introduced a
disclaimer the wording of which was inspired by </span></i><a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/g070001ex1.pdf"><i>G 1/07</i></a><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">. Claim 29 of the first
auxiliary request read:<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><span lang="EN-US">A method of imparting
disruptive forces onto a target surface (57), <u>with the exception of such
uses that comprise or encompass an invasive step representing a substantial
physical intervention on the body of a human or an animal which requires
professional medical expertise to be carried out and which entail a substantial
health risk even when carried out with the required professional care and
expertise</u>, comprising:<br /> </span></i><i><span lang="EN-US">using a moisture
output to dynamically place a first layer of moisture in form of fluid
particles and/or mist above a plurality of points of the target surface so that
different parts of the first layer of moisture are simultaneously disposed over
different ones of the plurality of points; and<br /> </span></i><i><span lang="EN-US">automatically scanning
electromagnetic energy via a scanner relative to the moisture output being
attached to a scanning housing of the scanner and formed as a mist disk, the
electromagnetic energy being scanned by a motor assembly for scanning an
optical fiber of an electromagnetic energy output or by reflectors and focusing
optics or dynamically controlled deflectors for scanning collimated or non
collimated electromagnetic energy above a plurality of points of the target
surface; whereby at least portions of the electromagnetic energy above the
plurality of points are at least partly absorbed by the moisture above the
plurality of points. <span style="color: grey; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">(my emphasis)</span></span></i></blockquote>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">The Board objected a lack of
clarity:<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[3.1] Compared to claim 29 of the main request,
claim 29 of auxiliary request I comprises a disclaimer aiming at excluding uses
that “comprise or encompass an invasive step representing a substantial
physical intervention on the body of a human or an animal which requires
professional medical expertise to be carried out and which entail a substantial
health risk even when carried out with the required professional care and
expertise.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[3.2] <span style="color: #ff6600;">However, the
uses excluded are not explicitly defined, but rather must be derived from a
condition which is to be fulfilled. Whether this condition is fulfilled or not
would have to be established by the reader of the claim.</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #ff6600; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">In particular, it would be left
to the reader’s own evaluation to establish whether a particular use
potentially falling within the scope of the claim was thus excluded.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #ff6600; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">This evaluation contains several
subjective aspects, such as establishing whether the physical intervention and
the health risk are to be considered “substantial”.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #ff6600; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Leaving room for such an
assessment by the reader inevitably introduces uncertainty as to the matter for
which protection is sought. Hence a lack of clarity arises, which is in breach
of A 84.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">Moreover, it is not clear how suitable the
wording of the disclaimer is for excluding the embodiments relating to therapy
as described in paragraphs [0057], [0061] and [0063].<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[3.3] The Board can follow the appellant’s
arguments regarding the introduction of a disclaimer in view of decision <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/g030001ex1.pdf">G 1/03</a>. In particular, it is accepted that in the present case introducing a
disclaimer for excluding subject-matter which would not be patentable under A
53(c) may not contravene A123(2). However, as also affirmed in said
decision <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/g030001ex1.pdf">G 1/03</a> [3] and in decision <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/g070001ex1.pdf">G 1/07</a> [point 2b of
the order], all the requirements of the EPC have to be considered when
examining said disclaimer, in particular those of A 84.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #ff6600; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">The fact that the wording chosen
for the disclaimer is the same as the one used in decision <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/g070001ex1.pdf">G 1/07</a> for
describing a surgical method does not mean that the claim fulfils the clarity
requirements of A 84.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">In decision <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/g070001ex1.pdf">G 1/07</a> said wording is used in the
general context of the explanation that if a method in which maintaining the
life and health of a subject is important and which comprises or encompasses an
invasive step representing a substantial physical intervention on the body
which requires professional medical expertise to be carried out and which
entails a substantial health risk even when carried out with the required
professional care and expertise, then said method is of surgical character for
the purposes of A 53(c). Consequently, an acceptable disclaimer would have to
exclude all methods fulfilling this condition. However, why this is the case
for a specific method should objectively be clear from the wording of the
disclaimer. In the present case, simply introducing the condition in the
disclaimer does not enable the reader to objectively assess whether said
condition is fulfilled or not. As a matter of fact, the difficulty often
involved in this assessment is also explicitly mentioned in decision <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/g070001ex1.pdf">G 1/07</a> itself: under point [3.4.2.6] of the Reasons it is stated that “in many situations it will not be an easy task to determine whether or not an invasive
step constituting a substantial physical intervention on the body comprised or
encompassed by a claim requires professional medical skills to be carried out
and involves a substantial health risk even when carried out with the required
care and expertise [ and ...] such a criterion could be expected to be handled
on a case-by-case basis [...].”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #ff6600; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">A similar situation may occur
when a disclaimer aiming at establishing novelty over subject-matter of a
conflicting application under A 54(3) is to be introduced. If the disclaimer
merely comprised general wording mentioning the conflicting application (e.g. “except
what is already known from European application No. [...]”), without explicitly
and precisely excluding the features anticipated by the conflicting
application, then a lack of clarity could also arise.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">As regards the reference to the filed
application allegedly making clear that the claimed method was not intended to
encompass uses on “problematic” soft tissues of a human or animal body, the
Board is firstly of the opinion that, in general, the claims should be clear in
themselves. Moreover, no clear distinction between “problematic” or
non-problematic tissues can be found in the filed application. As a result, not
even the content of the application as a whole gives assistance in interpreting
the disclaimer.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[3.4] Hence, auxiliary request I cannot be
allowed as it does not comply with A 84.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">The applicant finally overcame the
objections by filing a request containing only apparatus claims.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">Should you wish to download the
whole decision, just click <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t091487eu1.pdf">here</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">The file wrapper can be found <a href="https://register.epo.org/espacenet/application?number=EP00303475">here</a>.</span></i></div>
orhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07992102028406713066noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-49412934895628427892013-12-10T02:01:00.000+01:002013-12-17T15:10:28.981+01:00T 2134/12 – Just Keep It<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">In this case the Examining Division
(ED) granted interlocutory revision and then sent the case to the Board of
appeal for a decision on reimbursement of the appeal fee. So far so good. There
was only one problem – the appellant had never asked to be reimbursed. <o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: center;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">***
Translation of <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t122134du1.pdf">the German original</a> ***<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB"> </span> </div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[1] Pursuant to R 103(2) the department whose
decision is impugned shall order the reimbursement if it revises its decision
and considers reimbursement equitable by reason of a substantial procedural
violation. In all other cases, matters of reimbursement shall be decided by the
Board of appeal.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[2] R 103(2) codifies the case law of the Legal
Board of appeal (<a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/j950032ex1.pdf">J 32/95</a>) in respect of R 67 EPC 1973 (see explanations to the
Implementing Regulations, <a href="http://www.european-patent-office.org/epo/pubs/oj003/03_03/03_ins3.pdf">Special edition n°1, OJ EPO 1999</a>, 713). This case law has been
confirmed by the Enlarged Board of appeal
in its decision <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/g030003ex1.pdf">G 3/03</a>. Accordingly, the first instance department which
revises its decision has to examine whether the conditions for a reimbursement
of the appeal fee have been satisfied, irrespective of whether the appellant
has indeed made such a request. If the department reaches the conclusion that the
conditions for a reimbursement have not been satisfied, it cannot order the
reimbursement of the appeal fee and it does not have to deal with the question
of reimbursement of the appeal fee in its decision pursuant to A 109(1).
According to the case law the appellant is not adversely affected by such a
decision (<a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/g030003ex1.pdf">G 3/03</a> [3]). If reimbursement has been requested, then the department
considering that the conditions for reimbursement have not been satisfied is
not entitled to dismiss the request. Rather, it has to remit the request to the
Boards of appeal (<a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/g030003ex1.pdf">G 3/03</a> [3.4, 4]).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">[3] <span style="color: orange;">In the present case neither the notice of
appeal dated July 11, 2012, nor the statement of grounds of appeal dated August
8, 2012, contain a request for reimbursement of the appeal fee. Nor does the
file contain anything indicating that such a request was made at a later stage.
According to the case law cited above the ED, therefore, should not have
remitted the case to the Board in order to have a decision on the reimbursement
of the appeal fee. Pursuant to R 103(2) the ED was indeed obliged to examine
whether it considered the requirements for a reimbursement of the appeal fee to
have been met. As the ED denied this and as there had not been any request for
reimbursement, there was no need for a corresponding statement in the
communication dated October 5, 2012. However, the deficient statement in the
communication cannot be understood to be a decision refusing [reimbursement],
because the ED was not entitled to decide [on that matter]. Once the decision
had been revised by the ED, and as a consequence of the fact that no request
for reimbursement had been filed together with the appeal, there was no pending
matter (<i>verfahrensanhängiger Gegenstand</i>)
on which the Board had to take a separate decision (<i>cf</i>. <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t050242fu1.pdf">T 242/05</a> [2.1-3]). The decision having been revised on July 11,
2012, the appeal proceedings were no longer pending (<a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t050242fu1.pdf">T 242/05</a> [2.3]).
Consequently the remittal to the Board which had been ordered by the ED on
October 1, 2012, in order to have a decision on the reimbursement of the appeal
fee is not based on a procedural matter (<i>Verfahrensgegenstand</i>)
which could have been entrusted to the Board. In view of these facts the Board
has to order a remittal of the case to the remitting ED (see in this context <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t050242fu1.pdf">T 242/05</a> [2.3-4] and <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t121703eu1.pdf">T 1703/12</a> [3,4]; although in the present case the ED does
not have to decide on the admissibility of a request for reimbursement of the
appeal fee that had been filed after the revision of the appealed decision, the
termination of the grant proceedings is within the competence of the ED). […]</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">The case is remitted to the first instance.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">Should you wish to download the
whole decision (in German), just click <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t122134du1.pdf">here</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">The file wrapper can be found <a href="https://register.epo.org/espacenet/application?number=EP08708186">here</a>.</span></i></div>
orhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07992102028406713066noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-38496699992573034672013-12-09T02:01:00.000+01:002013-12-15T13:38:14.570+01:00R 15/13 – An Angry Man<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">This petition for review deals with
one of those cases where emotions run high during the oral proceedings (OPs). The professional
representative of the patent proprietor, whose patent had been revoked by Board
3.5.03 (case <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t102198eu1.pdf">T 2198/10</a>), had the very bad idea of using very strong language in the
petition.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">In the course of the proceedings,
the patent proprietor dissociated itself from the “inappropriate or defamatory
comments” made in the petition.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">The representative then apologised
in a letter and confirmed the apology in the OPs before the
Enlarged Board (EBA).<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">The petition was found to be
clearly unallowable. The decision contains an interesting paragraph dealing
with the emotional style of the petition, and possible consequences as to its admissibility.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[4] It appears to the EBA that the petition was
filed within two months of notification of the decision in question, that the
petitioner was adversely affected thereby, that the prescribed fee has been
paid in time, and that the petition complies with R 107(1)(b).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[5] As regards R 106, the EBA notes that the
petitioner argued, as regards the alleged fundamental procedural violations to
which it ultimately confined its case, that it could not make an objection
under R 106 because it only knew of the violations on reading the written
decision. That argument is called into question by the petitioner's own letter
of 15 April 2013 […] in which Dr. V. makes allegations about the reasons for
the decision (and the partiality of the Board of Appeal) even before the
written decision was issued. However, since the petition is in any event
clearly unallowable, this matter need not be decided.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[6]<span style="color: #ff6600;"> The petition
was written in a highly emotive style and included a large volume of derogatory
language, much of which (for example, “fabricating the decision”, “partiality”,
“stolen patent”, “jealousy and outright bad faith”, “aggressive and corrupt”,
and “fraud”) was excessive and without apparent basis in the petition. The EBA
considered accordingly whether the petition was “in a reasoned statement” as
required by A 112a(4). However, in view of Dr. V’s apology (in his
representative’s letter of 18 September 2013) for his use of such language and
the actual withdrawal of the offensive allegations at the commencement of the OPs,
the EBA did not pursue this further.</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[7] Accordingly, the EBA does not find that the
petition is clearly inadmissible.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">When you have to let off steam, don’t
do it in a petition. Buy a punching ball, the use of which will not leave
traces in the patent register and in the minds of the judges. And you will not have to apologise afterwards.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">Should you wish to download the
whole decision, just click <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/r130015eu1.pdf">here</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">The file wrapper can be found <a href="https://register.epo.org/espacenet/application?number=EP97904465">here</a>.</span></i></div>
orhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07992102028406713066noreply@blogger.com14tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-82675583483103417072013-12-06T02:01:00.000+01:002013-12-15T13:37:53.468+01:00T 215/11 – Propagation Of Error<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">In this case the Opposition Division
had revoked the patent under consideration on the ground of insufficiency of
disclosure.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">The case is interesting because
page 6 of the application as filed (which was also present in the </span></i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">Druckexemplar<i>)
was omitted in the patent as published; this missing page was decisive for the
question of sufficiency.<o:p></o:p></i></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">The patent proprietor requested the
reinsertion of the page; the opponent objected and pointed out that this would
lead to a violation of A 123(3).<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">The Board accepted the reinsertion.
What makes the decision particularly spicy is that after having announced
its decision, the Board discovered that the </span></i><span style="color: grey;">Druckexemplar</span><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey;"> indeed contained </span></i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey;"><i style="color: black;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey;">the page</span></i><i>,
which obviously changes the legal situation.</i></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[2.1] <span style="color: #ff6600;">The [patent
proprietor] had requested reinstatement initially as a correction of the
decision to grant under R 140, then as an amendment to the patent under A 123 in
view of <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/g100001ex1.pdf">G 1/10</a> [13]. The Board held this amendment to be a fair attempt to
overcome the objection of insufficiency of disclosure raised by the respondent
during the opposition procedure, R 80 EPC 1973. That objection had been based
on the absence in the patent specification of information appearing on page 6
of the description as filed.</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">Taking into account the fact that in principle
amendments of the specification may affect the scope of the patent, A 69, the
Board examined the scope of protection of the patent with and without the
missing page and found that <span style="color: #ff6600;">the restored additional
information from page 6 as filed, lines 1 to 10, would at most result in a
narrower interpretation of claim 1 </span>as regards the required data
collected by or held in, respectively, the second computer. It furthermore
found that this same data was also mentioned in the context of the second
computers under paragraph [0005] of the patent.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #ff6600; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">That said, it is simply not
apparent to the Board why the re-insertion of the missing page would create any
new subject-matter which the skilled person would not have considered to fall
under the scope of protection when interpreting the patent in its unamended
form.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">Therefore, the Board concluded that the
reinstatement of missing description page 6 did not extend the scope of
protection contrary to A 123(3).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">[2.2] The Board notes, by way of <i>obiter dictum</i>, that following the
announcement of the decision during the oral proceedings (OPs) the Board has
become aware that missing page 6 was in fact originally included in the text of
the description on which the examining division based its decision to grant:
see the “<i>Druckexemplar</i>” attached to the communication under R 51(4) EPC 1973,
dated 14 September 2000. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #ff6600; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Page 6 was thus erroneously
omitted from the “<i>Druckexemplar</i>” by the EPO upon publication of the
specification of the European patent. The correct procedure for dealing with
errors of this kind is outlined in EPC <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/h_vi_3.htm">Guidelines, H-VI 3</a> (September 2013),
where it is also stated that errors of this kind can be corrected at any time,
and the Board sees no reason to disagree. Correction is then effected by way of
a <i>corrigendum</i> or reprint of the
entire specification, see EPC <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/c_v_10.htm">Guidelines C-V 10</a> (September 2013), last
paragraph. As indicated there only the text on which the decision to grant the
patent is based is decisive, i.e. that text is legally binding as regards
existence and scope of the patent. As the <i>Druckexemplar </i>did in fact include
page 6, and this was the legally binding text, the objections raised by the
respondent-opponent under A 100(b) and A 123(3), based solely on the missing page
6, the appellant proprietor’s requests for correction under R 140 or amendment,
as well as the ensuing discussion during the OPs before the Board concerning A
123(3)) and the Board’s finding above were from a substantive point of view
legally unfounded (not having considered the totality of the relevant facts)
and obviously unnecessary. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-GB">However, notwithstanding this deficiency, that
final decision by the Board has not lead to a different outcome of the appeal
than if a <i>corrigendum</i> had been
issued, nor has it resulted in any adverse effect or some other unwarranted
loss of rights of either party.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">Should you wish to download the
whole decision, just click <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t110215eu1.pdf">here</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: grey; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-themecolor: background1; mso-themeshade: 128;">The file wrapper can be found <a href="https://register.epo.org/espacenet/application?number=EP95200027">here</a>.</span></i></div>
orhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07992102028406713066noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-5979129141579953822013-12-05T02:01:00.000+01:002013-12-12T01:26:51.718+01:00T 1404/10 - Equilibrium<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #999999;"><i>In this decision (on an appeal against the rejection of an opposition) Board 3.2.01 also had to deal with a request for apportionment of costs.</i></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #999999;"><i><br /></i></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #999999;"><i>The reason was that during the oral proceedings held on April 26, 2013, the patent proprietor questioned the identity of the opponent. As a consequence the OPs had been adjourned.</i></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #999999;"><i><br /></i></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #999999;"><i>*** Translation of <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t101404du1.pdf">the German original</a> ***</i></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
[7.1] The [opponent] requested that the [patent proprietor] should bear the hotel and travel costs for the head of the opponent’s […] patent department, which had been incurred as a consequence of the OPs being summoned afresh.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
[7.2] In the present case the [patent proprietor] waited until the OPs before it expressed its doubts regarding the identity of the […] opponent, which made it necessary to summon new OPs. The [patent proprietor] admitted that it was already aware of the transfer of the relevant business four days before the date on which the OPs were to be held. On the other hand, the [opponent] admitted that it had forgotten to declare the transfer of the business. However, a transfer of the party status in the course of the proceedings can only be effective when the Board has been requested before the Board to register the legal succession and when the corresponding evidence has been filed (see <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t970019du1.pdf">T 19/97</a> [5]) – something that could only be done by the [opponent].</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
[7.3] Pursuant to A 104(1) EPC 1973 each party to the opposition proceedings shall meet the costs it has incurred unless a different apportionment of costs is ordered “for reasons of equity”. According to the case law of the Boards of appeal the requirement of equity is met when the behaviour of a party does not comply with the due care it may be expected to show. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #e69138;">The Board is of the opinion that in the present case – as explained under point [7.2] above – both parties were partly responsible for the situation where a new date for OPs had to be fixed. In particular, the Board cannot see any intentional abuse of proceedings, so that there are no reasons of equity that make it necessary to order a different apportionment of costs under A 104(1) EPC 1973 in favour of the [opponent]. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Therefore, the request for apportionment of costs is not granted.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #999999;"><i>Should you wish to download the whole decision (in German), just click <a href="http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t101404du1.pdf">here</a>.</i></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #999999;"><i><br /></i></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #999999;"><i>The file wrapper can be found <a href="https://register.epo.org/espacenet/application?number=EP00938754">here</a>.</i></span></div>
orhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07992102028406713066noreply@blogger.com0