14-15 November 2018
|European Case Law Identifier:||ECLI:EP:BA:2013:T211509.20131023|
|Date of decision:||23 October 2013|
|Case number:||T 2115/09|
|IPC class:||G06F 13/24|
|Language of proceedings:||EN|
|Download and more information:||
|Title of application:||Computer system and method for transmitting interrupt messages through a parallel communication bus|
|Applicant name:||GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY|
|Relevant legal provisions:||
|Keywords:||Appeal sufficiently reasoned no|
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I. The appeal lies against the decision of the examining di vision, dated 15 May 2009, to refuse European patent application 05 749 829.7 for lack of novelty over D1 = US 5 956 516. For its reasons, the decision referred to a communication dated 8 January 2009, the applicant ha ving requested a decision according to the state of the file.
II. Notice of appeal was filed on 23 July 2009, the appeal fee being paid on the same day. With a statement of grounds of appeal, received on 24 September 2009, the appellant requested that the decision under appeal be set aside and a patent be granted based on an amended set of claims which was filed with the grounds of appeal in view of overcoming the objections of the examining division.
III. With a communication accompanying the summons to oral proceedings the board informed the appellant of its pre liminary opinion that the appeal had to be rejected as inadmissible, Rule 101(1) EPC, for lack of substan tiation as required by Rule 99(2) EPC and Article 12(2) RPBA and that the amended set of claims might be found inadmissible under Article 12(4) RPBA.
IV. In response to the summons the appellant submitted nei ther arguments nor amendments but, with letter dated 1 July 2013, only withdrew its request for oral pro cee dings and requested that a written decision be issued in accordance with the current state of the file.
V. The board then cancelled the oral proceedings.
VI. The present decision is based on the applicant's state ment of grounds and the board's communication in accor dance with Article 12(1)(a) and (c) RPBA.
Reasons for the Decision
1. In the statement of grounds, the appellant declares that the claims were amended "for further clarity with respect to ... D1" and identifies the amendments and their basis in the application as originally filed (see 3rd paragraph of the grounds). The appellant further for mu lates an objective technical problem that "might be en visaged to exist with the prior art document D1", states that the computer system in accordance with the amended claims addresses this problem, and alleges that "the novel architecture of the second device, as now re cited in the claims, is not disclosed or suggested by D1 or any of the other documents with a view of addressing the aforementioned problem" (see 4th-6th para graphs of the grounds). The statement of grounds does not contain any further substantial statements that could support the appeal. In the statement of grounds, the appellant neither specifically addresses the rea sons given in the de ci sion under appeal nor the dis clo sure of D1 or of the other cited documents. It thus leaves to the board the task to find out to what extent the reasons given in the appealed decision no longer app ly to the amended claims and especially why the appellant considers these amendments to render the sub ject-matter of claim 1 new over D1.
2. In its communication the board expressed its provisio nal view that these terse statements constituted in suffi cient indication of the reasons for setting aside the decision impugned or the extent to which it was to be amended and the facts and evidence supporting the appeal and that, therefore and in line with established jurisprudence of the boards of appeal (see for instance T 145/88, OJ EPO 1991, 251; and T 760/08, not pub lished), the requirement of Rule 99(2) EPC was not met.
3. Absent any counterargument by the appellant the board has no reason to deviate from the preliminary assess ment given in its communication and therefore concludes that the appeal is to be rejected as inadmissible pur suant to Rule 101(1) EPC.
4. Given this finding, the question whether the amended claims and the appeal as a whole are inadmissible also under Articles 12(2) and (4) RPBA is not relevant any more.
For these reasons it is decided that:
The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.