T 1109/24 (Incremental search/ADEIA GUIDES) vom 05.09.2025
- Europäischer Rechtsprechungsidentifikator
- ECLI:EP:BA:2025:T110924.20250905
- Datum der Entscheidung
- 5. September 2025
- Aktenzeichen
- T 1109/24
- Online am
- 2. Dezember 2025
- Antrag auf Überprüfung von
- -
- Anmeldenummer
- 16173199.7
- IPC-Klasse
- G06F 3/023G06F 17/27G06F 17/30
- Verfahrenssprache
- Englisch
- Verteilung
- Nicht verteilt (D)
- Download
- Entscheidung auf Englisch
- Amtsblattfassungen
- Keine AB-Links gefunden
- Weitere Entscheidungen für diese Akte
- -
- Zusammenfassungen für diese Entscheidung
- Zusammenfassung von Article 056 EPC
- Bezeichnung der Anmeldung
- System and method for finding desired results by incremental search using an ambiguous keypad with the input containing orthographic and typographic errors
- Name des Antragstellers
- Adeia Guides Inc.
- Name des Einsprechenden
- -
- Kammer
- 3.5.07
- Leitsatz
- -
- Relevante Rechtsnormen
- European Patent Convention Art 56European Patent Convention Art 76(1)European Patent Convention Art 84European Patent Convention Art 111(1)European Patent Convention Art 123(2)
- Schlagwörter
- Claims - clarity (yes)
Amendments - added subject-matter (no)
Amendment after expiry of period in R. 100(2) EPC communication - exceptional circumstances (yes)
Inventive step - after amendment
Inventive step - over prior art cited in decision (yes)
Inventive step - over prior art cited in application (not decided)
Remittal - special reasons for remittal (yes) - Orientierungssatz
- Although the "could" question in the could-would approach may often require little or no justification, it cannot be ignored in cases where there is not self-evidently a realistic path or "workable route" from the starting point to the claimed invention. That is the case if the distinguishing features cannot reasonably be combined with the closest prior art to obtain the claimed invention.
In such a situation, the invention is not rendered obvious by that prior art and the question whether the distinguishing features achieve a technical effect over the closest prior art is essentially meaningless. - Zitierte Akten
- T 0667/91
- Zitierende Akten
- -
Order
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The decision under appeal is set aside.
2. The case is remitted to the examining division for further prosecution.