J 0021/82 (Different sets of claims) 10-08-1983

I. On 17 February 1982, the appellants filed a European patent application**(Application No. 82300793.5) claiming priority from U.S. national patent applications filed on 17 February 1981. The application contained three separate sets of claims relating to chemical compositions and their production: - one set, consisting of seven claims, was labelled "for Belgium, Switzerland/Liechtenstein, Federal Republic of Germany, United Kingdom, Italy, The Netherlands and France." - a second set, consisting of nine claims, was restricted to Austria. - a third set, consisting of six claims, was labelled "for Luxembourg and Sweden."

II. The Receiving Section informed the appellants' representative, by letter dated 7 July 1982, that, except insofar as the set of claims for Austria was concerned, the filing of separate sets of claims for different designated Contracting States was considered to be inadmissible. Accordingly the set of six claims for Luxembourg and Sweden were considered not to have been filed and would not be included in the publication under Article 93 EPC. The set of seven claims was considered to have been filed for all the designated Contracting States but Austria.

III. In reply, by letter dated 12 July 1982, the appellants' representative indicated that the reason for filing the two sets of claims for the Contracting States other than Austria was the existence of an alleged prior European right in the States for which the first set of seven claims was intended. The appellants made detailed submissions and asked for a decision on the matter and, in effect, for the withdrawal of the letter of 7 July 1982.

IV. By the decision under appeal, dated 27 August 1982, the Receiving Section rejected the appellants' request for publication of all three sets of claims and held that the set of claims labelled "for Luxembourg and Sweden" should be deemed not to have been received and that the restriction as to the first set of claims reading "for Belgium, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Federal Republic of Germany, United Kindgom, Italy, The Netherlands and France" should be deleted. The existence of a prior European right was denied.

V. The appellants appealed against this decision by notice of appeal dated 21 October 1982, seeking reversal of the refusal to publish the set of claims labelled "for Luxembourg and Sweden", or, alternatively, that those claims should be published with the label amended to read "for all designated States other than Austria." The appellants also asked for cancellation of that part of the decision which held that the set of six claims for Luxembourg and Sweden should be deemed not to have been received. They asked for reimbursement of the appeal fee. That fee was duly paid.

VI. In the Statement of Grounds of their appeal, also dated 21 October 1982, the appellants explained the factual background to their case and referred inter alia to correspondence between their representatives and the Legal Division of the European Patent Office. They submitted, in particular, that Article 93 EPC was mandatory: failure or refusal to publish any claims "as filed" would be contrary to its provisions. Furthermore, since Rule 87 EPC provided for separate claims to be filed for those countries where prior European rights exist, it was permissible, and desirable, for an applicant to bring the matter to the attention of the European Patent Office before publication of the application. Action under Rule 87 EPC could be taken by the Receiving Section.

VII. In a communication dated 8 March 1983, the Legal Board of Appeal drew attention to the point that it seemed to be possible to deduce from the scheme of the EPC as a whole that it is not until a case reaches an Examining Division that questions of providing inter alia different claims for different States can be considered. Article 78 (1) EPC did not authorise the filing of more than one description, one claim or set of claims, one set of drawings or one abstract. Rule 49 (3) EPC provided for the additional publication of new or amended claims but only under prescribed conditions. Since amendment to provide different claims, descriptions and drawings for different States was permissible under Rule 87 EPC there was no reason to suppose that it was also permissible under Rule 86 (2) EPC before a case reached the Examining Division. This view was consistent with the general division of responsibilities between the Receiving Section and the Examining Division.

VIII. In their letter in reply, dated 24 March 1983, the appellants' representatives indicated that they would wish to have the opportunity of attending oral proceedings if the Legal Board of Appeal were inclined to reject the appeal. In written submissions attached to their letter, they argued, in particular, that Rule 87 EPC expressly permitted the filing of separate sets of claims, a practice which was beneficial to the applicant, the European Patent Office and the public alike. The other provisions referred to by the Board were not inconsistent with their argument.

IX. Oral proceedings were appointed for 13 July 1983. In a communication prior to the hearing, the appellants were informed inter alia that the conclusion that Rule 87 EPC explicitly permitted a plurality of claims ab initio was unlikely to be accepted on any material then in the case and that any advantages for the Examining Division from the filing of separate sets of claims ab initio would be counterbalanced by disadvantages for the Receiving Section.

X. During the oral proceedings, the appellants' representative submitted that the public interest was paramount and that it detracted from the legal certainty ensured by early publication of applications if applications as published did not, where appropriate, contain separate sets of claims for different designated States. The Receiving Section did not have to check the alleged intervening prior right: therefore there was no organisational problem. The search could be conducted on the basis of the broadest claims filed. The very existence of Rule 87 EPC proved that there had to be exceptions to the principle that a European patent application is a unity. Furthermore, in many cases European patent applications proceeded to grant without amendment. This was an additional reason for allowing separate sets of claims to be filed ab initio. The appellants' representative maintained the claims for relief set out in the notice of appeal.