Skip to main content Skip to footer
HomeHome
 
  • Homepage
  • Searching for patents

    Patent knowledge

    Access our patent databases and search tools.

    Go to overview 

    • Overview
    • Technical information
      • Overview
      • Espacenet - patent search
      • European Publication Server
      • EP full-text search
    • Legal information
      • Overview
      • European Patent Register
      • European Patent Bulletin
      • European Case Law Identifier sitemap
      • Third-party observations
    • Business information
      • Overview
      • PATSTAT
      • IPscore
      • Technology insight reports
    • Data
      • Overview
      • Technology Intelligence Platform
      • Linked open EP data
      • Bulk data sets
      • Web services
      • Coverage, codes and statistics
    • Technology platforms
      • Overview
      • Plastics in transition
      • Water innovation
      • Space innovation
      • Technologies combatting cancer
      • Firefighting technologies
      • Clean energy technologies
      • Fighting coronavirus
    • Helpful resources
      • Overview
      • First time here?
      • Asian patent information
      • Patent information centres
      • Patent Translate
      • Patent Knowledge News
      • Business and statistics
      • Unitary Patent information in patent knowledge
    Image
    Plastics in Transition

    Technology insight report on plastic waste management

  • Applying for a patent

    Applying for a patent

    Practical information on filing and grant procedures.

    Go to overview 

    • Overview
    • European route
      • Overview
      • European Patent Guide
      • Oppositions
      • Oral proceedings
      • Appeals
      • Unitary Patent & Unified Patent Court
      • National validation
      • Request for extension/validation
    • International route (PCT)
      • Overview
      • Euro-PCT Guide – PCT procedure at the EPO
      • EPO decisions and notices
      • PCT provisions and resources
      • Extension/validation request
      • Reinforced partnership programme
      • Accelerating your PCT application
      • Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH)
      • Training and events
    • National route
    • Find a professional representative
    • MyEPO services
      • Overview
      • Understand our services
      • Get access
      • File with us
      • Interact with us on your files
      • Online Filing & fee payment outages
    • Forms
      • Overview
      • Request for examination
    • Fees
      • Overview
      • European fees (EPC)
      • International fees (PCT)
      • Unitary Patent fees (UP)
      • Fee payment and refunds
      • Warning

    UP

    Find out how the Unitary Patent can enhance your IP strategy

  • Law & practice

    Law & practice

    European patent law, the Official Journal and other legal texts.

    Go to overview 

    • Overview
    • Legal texts
      • Overview
      • European Patent Convention
      • Official Journal
      • Guidelines
      • Extension / validation system
      • London Agreement
      • National law relating to the EPC
      • Unitary patent system
      • National measures relating to the Unitary Patent
    • Court practices
      • Overview
      • European Patent Judges' Symposium
    • User consultations
      • Overview
      • Ongoing consultations
      • Completed consultations
    • Substantive patent law harmonisation
      • Overview
      • The Tegernsee process
      • Group B+
    • Convergence of practice
    • Options for professional representatives
    Image
    Law and practice scales 720x237

    Keep up with key aspects of selected BoA decisions with our monthly "Abstracts of decisions”

  • News & events

    News & events

    Our latest news, podcasts and events, including the European Inventor Award.

    Go to overview 

     

    • Overview
    • News
    • Events
    • European Inventor Award
      • Overview
      • The meaning of tomorrow
      • About the award
      • Categories and prizes
      • Meet the finalists
      • Nominations
      • European Inventor Network
      • The 2024 event
    • Young Inventor Prize
      • Overview
      • About the prize
      • Nominations
      • The jury
      • The world, reimagined
    • Press centre
      • Overview
      • Patent Index and statistics
      • Search in press centre
      • Background information
      • Copyright
      • Press contacts
      • Call back form
      • Email alert service
    • Innovation and patenting in focus
      • Overview
      • Water-related technologies
      • CodeFest
      • Green tech in focus
      • Research institutes
      • Women inventors
      • Lifestyle
      • Space and satellites
      • The future of medicine
      • Materials science
      • Mobile communications
      • Biotechnology
      • Patent classification
      • Digital technologies
      • The future of manufacturing
      • Books by EPO experts
    • "Talk innovation" podcast

    Podcast

    From ideas to inventions: tune into our podcast for the latest in tech and IP

  • Learning

    Learning

    The European Patent Academy – the point of access to your learning

    Go to overview 

    • Overview
    • Learning activities and paths
      • Overview
      • Learning activities
      • Learning paths
    • EQE and EPAC
      • Overview
      • EQE - European qualifying examination
      • EPAC - European patent administration certification
      • CSP – Candidate Support Programme
    • Learning resources by area of interest
      • Overview
      • Patent granting
      • Technology transfer and dissemination
      • Patent enforcement and litigation
    • Learning resources by profile
      • Overview
      • Business and IP managers
      • EQE and EPAC Candidates
      • Judges, lawyers and prosecutors
      • National offices and IP authorities
      • Patent attorneys and paralegals
      • Universities, research centres and technology transfer centres (TTOs)
    Image
    Patent Academy catalogue

    Have a look at the extensive range of learning opportunities in the European Patent Academy training catalogue

  • About us

    About us

    Find out more about our work, values, history and vision

    Go to overview 

    • Overview
    • The EPO at a glance
    • 50 years of the EPC
      • Overview
      • Official celebrations
      • Member states’ video statements
      • 50 Leading Tech Voices
      • Athens Marathon
      • Kids’ collaborative art competition
    • Legal foundations and member states
      • Overview
      • Legal foundations
      • Member states of the European Patent Organisation
      • Extension states
      • Validation states
    • Administrative Council and subsidiary bodies
      • Overview
      • Communiqués
      • Calendar
      • Documents and publications
      • Administrative Council
    • Principles & strategy
      • Overview
      • Our mission, vision, values and corporate policy
      • Strategic Plan 2028
      • Towards a New Normal
    • Leadership & management
      • Overview
      • President António Campinos
      • Management Advisory Committee
    • Sustainability at the EPO
      • Overview
      • Environmental
      • Social
      • Governance and Financial sustainability
    • Services & activities
      • Overview
      • Our services & structure
      • Quality
      • Consulting our users
      • European and international co-operation
      • European Patent Academy
      • Chief Economist
      • Ombuds Office
      • Reporting wrongdoing
    • Observatory on Patents and Technology
      • Overview
      • Innovation actors
      • Policy and funding
      • Tools
      • About the Observatory
    • Procurement
      • Overview
      • Procurement forecast
      • Doing business with the EPO
      • Procurement procedures
      • Sustainable Procurement Policy
      • About eTendering and electronic signatures
      • Procurement portal
      • Invoicing
      • General conditions
      • Archived tenders
    • Transparency portal
      • Overview
      • General
      • Human
      • Environmental
      • Organisational
      • Social and relational
      • Economic
      • Governance
    • Statistics and trends
      • Overview
      • Statistics & Trends Centre
      • Patent Index 2024
      • EPO Data Hub
      • Clarification on data sources
    • History
      • Overview
      • 1970s
      • 1980s
      • 1990s
      • 2000s
      • 2010s
      • 2020s
    • Art collection
      • Overview
      • The collection
      • Let's talk about art
      • Artists
      • Media library
      • What's on
      • Publications
      • Contact
      • Culture Space A&T 5-10
      • "Long Night"
    Image
    Patent Index 2024 keyvisual showing brightly lit up data chip, tinted in purple, bright blue

    Track the latest tech trends with our Patent Index

 
en de fr
  • Language selection
  • English
  • Deutsch
  • Français
Main navigation
  • Homepage
  • New to patents
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • What's your big idea?
    • Are you ready?
    • What to expect
    • How to apply for a patent
    • Your business and patents
    • Is it patentable?
    • Are you first?
    • Why do we have patents?
    • Patent quiz
    • Unitary patent video
  • Searching for patents
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • Technical information
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Espacenet - patent search
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • National patent office databases
        • Global Patent Index (GPI)
        • Release notes
      • European Publication Server
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Release notes
        • Cross-reference index for Euro-PCT applications
        • EP authority file
        • Help
      • EP full-text search
    • Legal information
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • European Patent Register
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Release notes archive
        • Register documentation
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Deep link data coverage
          • Federated Register
          • Register events
      • European Patent Bulletin
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Download Bulletin
        • EP Bulletin search
        • Help
      • European Case Law Identifier sitemap
      • Third-party observations
    • Business information
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • PATSTAT
      • IPscore
        • Go back
        • Release notes
      • Technology insight reports
    • Data
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Technology Intelligence Platform
      • Linked open EP data
      • Bulk data sets
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Manuals
        • Sequence listings
        • National full-text data
        • European Patent Register data
        • EPO worldwide bibliographic data (DOCDB)
        • EP full-text data
        • EPO worldwide legal event data (INPADOC)
        • EP bibliographic data (EBD)
        • Boards of Appeal decisions
      • Web services
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Open Patent Services (OPS)
        • European Publication Server web service
      • Coverage, codes and statistics
        • Go back
        • Weekly updates
        • Updated regularly
    • Technology platforms
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Plastics in transition
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Plastics waste recovery
        • Plastics waste recycling
        • Alternative plastics
      • Innovation in water technologies
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Clean water
        • Protection from water
      • Space innovation
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Cosmonautics
        • Space observation
      • Technologies combatting cancer
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Prevention and early detection
        • Diagnostics
        • Therapies
        • Wellbeing and aftercare
      • Firefighting technologies
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Detection and prevention of fires
        • Fire extinguishing
        • Protective equipment
        • Post-fire restoration
      • Clean energy technologies
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Renewable energy
        • Carbon-intensive industries
        • Energy storage and other enabling technologies
      • Fighting coronavirus
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Vaccines and therapeutics
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Vaccines
          • Overview of candidate therapies for COVID-19
          • Candidate antiviral and symptomatic therapeutics
          • Nucleic acids and antibodies to fight coronavirus
        • Diagnostics and analytics
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Protein and nucleic acid assays
          • Analytical protocols
        • Informatics
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Bioinformatics
          • Healthcare informatics
        • Technologies for the new normal
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Devices, materials and equipment
          • Procedures, actions and activities
          • Digital technologies
        • Inventors against coronavirus
    • Helpful resources
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • First time here?
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Basic definitions
        • Patent classification
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC)
        • Patent families
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • DOCDB simple patent family
          • INPADOC extended patent family
        • Legal event data
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • INPADOC classification scheme
      • Asian patent information
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • China (CN)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Facts and figures
          • Grant procedure
          • Numbering system
          • Useful terms
          • Searching in databases
        • Chinese Taipei (TW)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Grant procedure
          • Numbering system
          • Useful terms
          • Searching in databases
        • India (IN)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Facts and figures
          • Grant procedure
          • Numbering system
        • Japan (JP)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Facts and figures
          • Grant procedure
          • Numbering system
          • Useful terms
          • Searching in databases
        • Korea (KR)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Facts and figures
          • Grant procedure
          • Numbering system
          • Useful terms
          • Searching in databases
        • Russian Federation (RU)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Facts and figures
          • Numbering system
          • Searching in databases
        • Useful links
      • Patent information centres (PATLIB)
      • Patent Translate
      • Patent Knowledge News
      • Business and statistics
      • Unitary Patent information in patent knowledge
  • Applying for a patent
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • European route
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • European Patent Guide
      • Oppositions
      • Oral proceedings
        • Go back
        • Oral proceedings calendar
          • Go back
          • Calendar
          • Public access to appeal proceedings
          • Public access to opposition proceedings
          • Technical guidelines
      • Appeals
      • Unitary Patent & Unified Patent Court
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Unitary Patent
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Legal framework
          • Main features
          • Applying for a Unitary Patent
          • Cost of a Unitary Patent
          • Translation and compensation
          • Start date
          • Introductory brochures
        • Unified Patent Court
      • National validation
      • Extension/validation request
    • International route
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Euro-PCT Guide
      • Entry into the European phase
      • Decisions and notices
      • PCT provisions and resources
      • Extension/validation request
      • Reinforced partnership programme
      • Accelerating your PCT application
      • Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH)
        • Go back
        • Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) programme outline
      • Training and events
    • National route
    • MyEPO services
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Understand our services
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Exchange data with us using an API
          • Go back
          • Release notes
      • Get access
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Release notes
      • File with us
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • What if our online filing services are down?
        • Release notes
      • Interact with us on your files
        • Go back
        • Release notes
      • Online Filing & fee payment outages
    • Fees
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • European fees (EPC)
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Decisions and notices
      • International fees (PCT)
        • Go back
        • Reduction in fees
        • Fees for international applications
        • Decisions and notices
        • Overview
      • Unitary Patent fees (UP)
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Decisions and notices
      • Fee payment and refunds
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Payment methods
        • Getting started
        • FAQs and other documentation
        • Technical information for batch payments
        • Decisions and notices
        • Release notes
      • Warning
    • Forms
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Request for examination
    • Find a professional representative
  • Law & practice
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • Legal texts
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • European Patent Convention
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Archive
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Documentation on the EPC revision 2000
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • Diplomatic Conference for the revision of the EPC
            • Travaux préparatoires
            • New text
            • Transitional provisions
            • Implementing regulations to the EPC 2000
            • Rules relating to Fees
            • Ratifications and accessions
          • Travaux Préparatoires EPC 1973
      • Official Journal
      • Guidelines
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • EPC Guidelines
        • PCT-EPO Guidelines
        • Unitary Patent Guidelines
        • Guidelines revision cycle
        • Consultation results
        • Summary of user responses
        • Archive
      • Extension / validation system
      • London Agreement
      • National law relating to the EPC
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Archive
      • Unitary Patent system
        • Go back
        • Travaux préparatoires to UP and UPC
      • National measures relating to the Unitary Patent 
    • Court practices
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • European Patent Judges' Symposium
    • User consultations
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Ongoing consultations
      • Completed consultations
    • Substantive patent law harmonisation
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • The Tegernsee process
      • Group B+
    • Convergence of practice
    • Options for professional representatives
  • News & events
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • News
    • Events
    • European Inventor Award
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • The meaning of tomorrow
      • About the award
      • Categories and prizes
      • Meet the inventors
      • Nominations
      • European Inventor Network
        • Go back
        • 2024 activities
        • 2025 activities
        • Rules and criteria
        • FAQ
      • The 2024 event
    • Young Inventors Prize
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • About the prize
      • Nominations
      • The jury
      • The world, reimagined
      • The 2025 event
    • Press centre
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Patent Index and statistics
      • Search in press centre
      • Background information
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • European Patent Office
        • Q&A on patents related to coronavirus
        • Q&A on plant patents
      • Copyright
      • Press contacts
      • Call back form
      • Email alert service
    • In focus
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Water-related technologies
      • CodeFest
        • Go back
        • CodeFest Spring 2025 on classifying patent data for sustainable development
        • Overview
        • CodeFest 2024 on generative AI
        • CodeFest 2023 on Green Plastics
      • Green tech in focus
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • About green tech
        • Renewable energies
        • Energy transition technologies
        • Building a greener future
      • Research institutes
      • Women inventors
      • Lifestyle
      • Space and satellites
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Patents and space technologies
      • Healthcare
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Medical technologies and cancer
        • Personalised medicine
      • Materials science
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Nanotechnology
      • Mobile communications
      • Biotechnology
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Red, white or green
        • The role of the EPO
        • What is patentable?
        • Biotech inventors
      • Classification
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Nanotechnology
        • Climate change mitigation technologies
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • External partners
          • Updates on Y02 and Y04S
      • Digital technologies
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • About ICT
        • Hardware and software
        • Artificial intelligence
        • Fourth Industrial Revolution
      • Additive manufacturing
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • About AM
        • AM innovation
      • Books by EPO experts
    • Podcast
  • Learning
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • Learning activities and paths
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Learning activities: types and formats
      • Learning paths
    • EQE and EPAC
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • EQE - European Qualifying Examination
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Compendium
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Paper F
          • Paper A
          • Paper B
          • Paper C
          • Paper D
          • Pre-examination
        • Candidates successful in the European qualifying examination
        • Archive
      • EPAC - European patent administration certification
      • CSP – Candidate Support Programme
    • Learning resources by area of interest
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Patent granting
      • Technology transfer and dissemination
      • Patent enforcement and litigation
    • Learning resources by profile
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Business and IP managers
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Innovation case studies
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • SME case studies
          • Technology transfer case studies
          • High-growth technology case studies
        • Inventor's handbook
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Introduction
          • Disclosure and confidentiality
          • Novelty and prior art
          • Competition and market potential
          • Assessing the risk ahead
          • Proving the invention
          • Protecting your idea
          • Building a team and seeking funding
          • Business planning
          • Finding and approaching companies
          • Dealing with companies
        • Best of search matters
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Tools and databases
          • EPO procedures and initiatives
          • Search strategies
          • Challenges and specific topics
        • Support for high-growth technology businesses
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Business decision-makers
          • IP professionals
          • Stakeholders of the Innovation Ecosystem
      • EQE and EPAC Candidates
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Paper F brain-teasers
        • Daily D questions
        • European qualifying examination - Guide for preparation
        • EPAC
      • Judges, lawyers and prosecutors
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Compulsory licensing in Europe
        • The jurisdiction of European courts in patent disputes
      • National offices and IP authorities
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Learning material for examiners of national officers
        • Learning material for formalities officers and paralegals
      • Patent attorneys and paralegals
      • Universities, research centres and TTOs
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Modular IP Education Framework (MIPEF)
        • Pan-European Seal Young Professionals Programme
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • For students
          • For universities
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • IP education resources
            • University memberships
          • Our young professionals
          • Professional development plan
        • Academic Research Programme
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Completed research projects
          • Current research projects
        • IP Teaching Kit
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Download modules
        • Intellectual property course design manual
        • PATLIB Knowledge Transfer to Africa
          • Go back
          • The PATLIB Knowledge Transfer to Africa initiative (KT2A)
          • KT2A core activities
          • Success story: Malawi University of Science and Technology and PATLIB Birmingham
  • About us
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • The EPO at a glance
    • 50 years of the EPC
      • Go back
      • Official celebrations
      • Overview
      • Member states’ video statements
        • Go back
        • Albania
        • Austria
        • Belgium
        • Bulgaria
        • Croatia
        • Cyprus
        • Czech Republic
        • Denmark
        • Estonia
        • Finland
        • France
        • Germany
        • Greece
        • Hungary
        • Iceland
        • Ireland
        • Italy
        • Latvia
        • Liechtenstein
        • Lithuania
        • Luxembourg
        • Malta
        • Monaco
        • Montenegro
        • Netherlands
        • North Macedonia
        • Norway
        • Poland
        • Portugal
        • Romania
        • San Marino
        • Serbia
        • Slovakia
        • Slovenia
        • Spain
        • Sweden
        • Switzerland
        • Türkiye
        • United Kingdom
      • 50 Leading Tech Voices
      • Athens Marathon
      • Kids’ collaborative art competition
    • Legal foundations and member states
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Legal foundations
      • Member states
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Member states by date of accession
      • Extension states
      • Validation states
    • Administrative Council and subsidiary bodies
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Communiqués
        • Go back
        • 2024
        • Overview
        • 2023
        • 2022
        • 2021
        • 2020
        • 2019
        • 2018
        • 2017
        • 2016
        • 2015
        • 2014
        • 2013
      • Calendar
      • Documents and publications
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Select Committee documents
      • Administrative Council
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Composition
        • Representatives
        • Rules of Procedure
        • Board of Auditors
        • Secretariat
        • Council bodies
    • Principles & strategy
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Mission, vision, values & corporate policy
      • Strategic Plan 2028
        • Go back
        • Driver 1: People
        • Driver 2: Technologies
        • Driver 3: High-quality, timely products and services
        • Driver 4: Partnerships
        • Driver 5: Financial sustainability
      • Towards a New Normal
      • Data protection & privacy notice
    • Leadership & management
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • About the President
      • Management Advisory Committee
    • Sustainability at the EPO
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Environmental
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Inspiring environmental inventions
      • Social
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Inspiring social inventions
      • Governance and Financial sustainability
    • Procurement
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Procurement forecast
      • Doing business with the EPO
      • Procurement procedures
      • Dynamic Purchasing System (DPS) publications
      • Sustainable Procurement Policy
      • About eTendering
      • Invoicing
      • Procurement portal
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • e-Signing contracts
      • General conditions
      • Archived tenders
    • Services & activities
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Our services & structure
      • Quality
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Foundations
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • European Patent Convention
          • Guidelines for examination
          • Our staff
        • Enabling quality
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Prior art
          • Classification
          • Tools
          • Processes
        • Products & services
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Search
          • Examination
          • Opposition
          • Continuous improvement
        • Quality through networking
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • User engagement
          • Co-operation
          • User satisfaction survey
          • Stakeholder Quality Assurance Panels
        • Patent Quality Charter
        • Quality Action Plan
        • Quality dashboard
        • Statistics
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Search
          • Examination
          • Opposition
        • Integrated management at the EPO
      • Consulting our users
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Standing Advisory Committee before the EPO (SACEPO)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Objectives
          • SACEPO and its working parties
          • Meetings
          • Single Access Portal – SACEPO Area
        • Surveys
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Detailed methodology
          • Search services
          • Examination services, final actions and publication
          • Opposition services
          • Formalities services
          • Customer services
          • Filing services
          • Key Account Management (KAM)
          • Website
          • Archive
      • Our user service charter
      • European and international co-operation
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Co-operation with member states
          • Go back
          • Overview
        • Bilateral co-operation with non-member states
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Validation system
          • Reinforced Partnership programme
        • Multilateral international co-operation with IP offices and organisations
        • Co-operation with international organisations outside the IP system
      • European Patent Academy
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Partners
      • Chief Economist
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Economic studies
      • Ombuds Office
      • Reporting wrongdoing
    • Observatory on Patents and Technology
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Innovation against cancer
      • Innovation actors
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Startups and SMEs
      • Policy and funding
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Financing innovation programme
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Our studies on the financing of innovation
          • EPO initiatives for patent applicants
          • Financial support for innovators in Europe
        • Patents and standards
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Publications
          • Patent standards explorer
      • Tools
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Deep Tech Finder
      • About the Observatory
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Work plan
    • Transparency portal
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • General
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Annual Review 2023
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Foreword
          • Executive summary
          • 50 years of the EPC
          • Strategic key performance indicators
          • Goal 1: Engaged and empowered
          • Goal 2: Digital transformation
          • Goal 3: Master quality
          • Goal 4: Partner for positive impact
          • Goal 5: Secure sustainability
        • Annual Review 2022
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Foreword
          • Executive summary
          • Goal 1: Engaged and empowered
          • Goal 2: Digital transformation
          • Goal 3: Master quality
          • Goal 4: Partner for positive impact
          • Goal 5: Secure sustainability
      • Human
      • Environmental
      • Organisational
      • Social and relational
      • Economic
      • Governance
    • Statistics and trends
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Statistics & Trends Centre
      • Patent Index 2024
        • Go back
        • Insight into computer technology and AI
        • Insight into clean energy technologies
        • Statistics and indicators
          • Go back
          • European patent applications
            • Go back
            • Key trend
            • Origin
            • Top 10 technical fields
              • Go back
              • Computer technology
              • Electrical machinery, apparatus, energy
              • Digital communication
              • Medical technology
              • Transport
              • Measurement
              • Biotechnology
              • Pharmaceuticals
              • Other special machines
              • Organic fine chemistry
            • All technical fields
          • Applicants
            • Go back
            • Top 50
            • Categories
            • Women inventors
          • Granted patents
            • Go back
            • Key trend
            • Origin
            • Designations
      • Data to download
      • EPO Data Hub
      • Clarification on data sources
    • History
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • 1970s
      • 1980s
      • 1990s
      • 2000s
      • 2010s
      • 2020s
    • Art collection
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • The collection
      • Let's talk about art
      • Artists
      • Media library
      • What's on
      • Publications
      • Contact
      • Culture Space A&T 5-10
        • Go back
        • Catalyst lab & Deep vision
          • Go back
          • Irene Sauter (DE)
          • AVPD (DK)
          • Jan Robert Leegte (NL)
          • Jānis Dzirnieks (LV) #1
          • Jānis Dzirnieks (LV) #2
          • Péter Szalay (HU)
          • Thomas Feuerstein (AT)
          • Tom Burr (US)
          • Wolfgang Tillmans (DE)
          • TerraPort
          • Unfinished Sculpture - Captives #1
          • Deep vision – immersive exhibition
          • Previous exhibitions
        • The European Patent Journey
        • Sustaining life. Art in the climate emergency
        • Next generation statements
        • Open storage
        • Cosmic bar
      • "Long Night"
  • Boards of Appeal
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • Decisions of the Boards of Appeal
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Recent decisions
      • Selected decisions
    • Information from the Boards of Appeal
    • Procedure
    • Oral proceedings
    • About the Boards of Appeal
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • President of the Boards of Appeal
      • Enlarged Board of Appeal
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Pending referrals (Art. 112 EPC)
        • Decisions sorted by number (Art. 112 EPC)
        • Pending petitions for review (Art. 112a EPC)
        • Decisions on petitions for review (Art. 112a EPC)
      • Technical Boards of Appeal
      • Legal Board of Appeal
      • Disciplinary Board of Appeal
      • Presidium
        • Go back
        • Overview
    • Code of Conduct
    • Business distribution scheme
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Technical boards of appeal by IPC in 2025
      • Archive
    • Annual list of cases
    • Communications
    • Annual reports
      • Go back
      • Overview
    • Publications
      • Go back
      • Abstracts of decisions
    • Case Law of the Boards of Appeal
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Archive
  • Service & support
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • Website updates
    • Availability of online services
      • Go back
      • Overview
    • FAQ
      • Go back
      • Overview
    • Publications
    • Ordering
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Patent Knowledge Products and Services
      • Terms and conditions
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Patent information products
        • Bulk data sets
        • Open Patent Services (OPS)
        • Fair use charter
    • Procedural communications
    • Useful links
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Patent offices of member states
      • Other patent offices
      • Directories of patent attorneys
      • Patent databases, registers and gazettes
      • Disclaimer
    • Contact us
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Filing options
      • Locations
    • Subscription centre
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Subscribe
      • Change preferences
      • Unsubscribe
    • Official holidays
    • Glossary
    • RSS feeds
Board of Appeals
Decisions

Recent decisions

Overview
  • 2025 decisions
  • 2024 decisions
  • 2023 decisions
  1. Home
  2. T 0520/03 13-01-2006
Facebook X Linkedin Email

T 0520/03 13-01-2006

European Case Law Identifier
ECLI:EP:BA:2006:T052003.20060113
Date of decision
13 January 2006
Case number
T 0520/03
Petition for review of
-
Application number
98303357.2
IPC class
C22B 1/16
Language of proceedings
EN
Distribution
DISTRIBUTED TO BOARD CHAIRMEN (C)

Download and more information:

Decision in EN 96.42 KB
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the European Patent Register
Bibliographic information is available in:
EN
Versions
Unpublished
Application title

Suppression of synthesis of chloro-organic pollutants during iron ore sintering

Applicant name
Corus UK Limited
Opponent name
USINOR
Board
3.2.07
Headnote
-
Relevant legal provisions
European Patent Convention Art 56 1973
European Patent Convention Art 111(1) 1973
European Patent Convention Art 112(1)(a) 1973
European Patent Convention Art 113(1) 1973
European Patent Convention Art 114(2) 1973
Keywords

Admissibility of late filed documents (yes)

Remittal after introduction of late filed documents in response to change resulting from proprietor's amendments (no)

Extent of appeal; Referral of questions to the Enlarged Board of Appeal (no)

Inventive step (main request to auxiliary request V - no); request to file further requests (no)

Catchword
-
Cited decisions
G 0005/83
G 0002/88
G 0006/88
G 0009/91
G 0010/91
G 0009/92
G 0004/93
T 0176/84
T 0195/84
T 0560/89
T 0623/93
J 0016/90
Citing decisions
-

I. The opponent lodged an appeal against the interlocutory decision of the Opposition Division to maintain European patent No. 0 875 587 in amended form on the basis of claims 1 to 3 according to the main request filed during the oral proceedings held on 10 January 2003 before the department of first instance.

II. The opposition had been filed against the patent as a whole and was based on Article 100(a) EPC (lack of novelty and lack of inventive step).

The Opposition Division held that the main request met the requirements of Articles 123(2) and (3) EPC and that novelty and inventive step were given for the subject-matter of claim 1 of the main request since it considered that D1 (JP-B-52-38 403 & Derwent abstract & full French translation) neither discloses nor comprises a hint to the claimed technical effect of the urea. The Opposition Division regarded this technical effect as a new functional feature in the light of Decisions G 2/88 and G 6/88. Since D3 (US-A-5 113 772) is related to the incineration of waste and since D4 (Gebert W. et al.: "PCDD/F emission reduction for sinter plants" Steel Times, vol. 223, no. 6, June 1995, Redhill, Surrey, GB, pages 220-222) is silent about adding an ammonia-releasing compound to iron ore sinter mixtures for the purpose of reducing dioxin emissions, the Opposition Division considered there is no incentive to combine D1 with either D3 or D4 for solving the problem posed.

III. Together with the grounds of appeal dated 23 June 2003 the appellant filed the documents D6 (JP-B-3 138 149 & English abstract), D6bis (French translation of D6) and D7 ("Sintering Plants of Steel Industry - The Most Important Thermical PCDD/F Source in Industrialized Regions?", Analytical methods, formation and sources, Vienna Federal Environmental Agency, 1993, vol. 11, pages 311-314).

IV. With a communication dated 31 October 2005 and annexed to the summons to oral proceedings the Board presented its preliminary opinion with respect to the main request underlying the impugned decision. This opinion was based only on the arguments of the appellant since the respondent had not presented any arguments in response to the appeal and had only requested oral proceedings. Claim 1 did not appear to meet the requirements of Articles 123(2) and (3) EPC. Furthermore, claim 1 appeared to lack novelty with respect to D1 since the decisions G 2/88 and G 6/88 did not appear to be applicable in the present case. Claim 1 in any case appeared to lack an inventive step.

V. As a response to the communication of the Board the respondent filed on 13 December 2005 with its letter of the same date the auxiliary requests I to IV together with arguments and document D8 (La Revue de Métallurgie-CIT, Mars 2002, pages 257-265). Furthermore, the respondent requested that the documents D6, D6bis and D7 should not be admitted into the procedure. It further requested that in the case the Board forms the opinion that it would be a prerequisite for the applicability of G 2/88 and/or G 6/88 to have an original claim to a composition which is subsequently amended into a use-claim, this question should be referred to the Enlarged Board of appeal.

VI. With letter of 9 January 2006 the respondent filed auxiliary request V and submitted further arguments. The respondent additionally requested that in the case that the Board intends to go outside the scope of the appeal, which scope should be considered in conjunction with the effect of withdrawal of the appeal according to G 9/92, the question should be referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal whether this would be allowable. Furthermore, it requested, in the case that the Board intends to refuse the patent for lack of inventive step on facts and arguments not correctly and/or timely brought into the proceedings, for which the proprietor has not had the possibility to defend himself adequately, to refer this to the first instance.

VII. Oral proceedings before the Board were held on 13 January 2006.

(a) The appellant requested that the decision under appeal be set aside and the patent be revoked.

(b) The respondent (patent proprietor) requested that the appeal be dismissed, or that the patent be maintained in accordance with auxiliary requests I to IV filed with letter of 13 December 2005, or in accordance with auxiliary request V filed with letter of 9 January 2006. Additionally, the respondent requested the limitation of the extent of the appeal to Articles 56 and 123(2) EPC. Furthermore, it requested if it applies, to:

(i) remit the case, if the decision is based on documents D6, D6bis and/or D7, and

(ii) to refer its questions mentioned under points V and VI above to the Enlarged Board of Appeal.

(c) The documents D1, D3, D4, D6, D6bis and D7 were discussed.

VIII. Claim 1 of the main request under consideration as filed on 10 January 2003 before the Opposition Division reads as follows:

"1. A method of suppressing the synthesis of chloro-organic pollutants, especially dioxins and furans, during iron ore sintering, comprising the sequential steps of producing a sinter feedstock by substantially homogeneously mixing inter alia iron ore with a solid compound which releases ammonia on thermal decomposition, depositing said feed stock onto a moving grate and combusting the same to produce sintered products rich in iron, characterised in that the ammonia releasing compound is urea (CO(NH2)2), the urea content of the feedstock mix being from 0.01 to 0.09% by weight."

IX. Claim 1 of auxiliary request I differs from claim 1 of the main request in that the wording "and the release of acidic gases such as hydrogen chloride and sulphur dioxide," has been inserted between the features "suppressing the synthesis of chloro-organic pollutants, especially dioxins and furans," and "during iron ore sintering".

X. Claim 1 of auxiliary request II reads:

"1. Use of solid urea (CO(NH2)2) for suppressing the synthesis of chloro-organic pollutants, especially dioxins and furans, during iron ore sintering, comprising the sequential steps of producing a sinter feedstock by substantially homogeneously mixing inter alia iron ore with the solid urea which releases ammonia on thermal decomposition, depositing said feed stock onto a moving grate and combusting the same to produce sintered products rich in iron, the urea content of the feedstock mix being from 0.01 to 0.09% by weight."

XI. Claim 1 of auxiliary request III differs from claim 1 of auxiliary request II in that the wording "and the release of acidic gases such as hydrogen chloride and sulphur dioxide," has been inserted between the features "suppressing the synthesis of chloro-organic pollutants, especially dioxins and furans," and "during iron ore sintering".

XII. Claim 1 of auxiliary request IV reads:

"1. A method of reducing toxic emissions, more especially dioxin formation, from a sinterstrand, whilst keeping the quantity of ammonia gas released into the atmosphere at low levels and without the need to introduce complex modifications to existing strand equipment during iron ore sintering, comprising the sequential steps of producing a sinter feedstock by substantially homogeneously mixing inter alia iron ore with a solid compound which releases ammonia on thermal decomposition, depositing said feed stock onto a moving grate and combusting the same to produce sintered products rich in iron, characterised in that the ammonia releasing compound is urea (CO(NH2)2), the urea content of the feedstock mix being from 0.01 to 0.09% by weight."

XIII. Claim 1 of auxiliary request V reads:

"1. A method of suppressing the synthesis of chloro-organic pollutants, especially dioxins and furans, during iron ore sintering, comprising the sequential steps of producing a sinter feedstock by substantially homogeneously mixing inter alia iron ore with a solid compound which releases ammonia on thermal decomposition, depositing said feedstock onto a moving grate and combusting the same to produce sintered products rich in iron, characterised in that the ammonia releasing compound is urea (CO(NH2)2), wherein the ammonia releasing compound is between 0.02 to 0.04% by weight of the feedstock mix."

XIV. The appellant argued essentially as follows:

Documents D6, D6bis and D7 should be admitted into the proceedings in accordance with T 623/93 since they were submitted together with the grounds of appeal as a reaction to the change of the respondent's case based on the late filed requests during the oral proceedings before the department of first instance. The question whether it is inventive to introduce urea as ammonia-releasing compound only arose after the amendments were made to claim 1. Document D6 is relevant as it deals with the suppression of dioxin while D7 shows the link between sinter and incineration plants. Document D8 is post-published and thus not directly relevant. It may, however, be admitted.

The extent of appeal is defined according to decision G 9/91 by the extent to which the patent is opposed in the notice of opposition (see decision, "order"). From the impugned decision of the present case it is evident that the Opposition Division considered novelty and Articles 123(2) and (3) EPC (see decision of Opposition Division, points 2.2 and 2.5 of the reasons). Furthermore, for amended requests all requirements of the EPC have to be considered (see G 9/91, point 19 of the reasons) which - on the basis of the amendments made to claim 1 of all requests - implies at least the application of Articles 123(2) and (3) EPC.

In accordance with decision G 2/88 the independent claim 1 of each of the six requests has to be interpreted taking account of its technical features in order to determine the protection conferred by the patent which is determined by the terms of the claims under Article 69(1) EPC (see points 2.5 and 3.3 of the reasons). It is not clear whether the process claims of the main request and auxiliary requests I, IV and V relate only to a process for the suppression of dioxins or if they relate to a process for the production of sintered iron ore including such suppression. In the latter case a protection for the product under Article 64(2) EPC is implied, whereas a use claim to obtain a specific effect as defined in auxiliary requests II and III implies no product protection (see G 2/88, point 5.1 of the reasons). Since the sintering process results in a clear end product, i.e. sintered iron ore, there are no functional features which distinguish the obtained product from such process from the product obtained by a sintering process which includes the suppression of dioxin. Consequently, the process should be considered to lack novelty. On the other hand, if the process is related only to the suppression of dioxins then it is no longer a sintering process but also results in a direct product, which is different from that according to the sinter process. As derivable from the patent in suit the gas resulting from the suppression process may contain besides PCDD/F, ammonia, hydrogen chloride, sulphur oxides and nitrogen oxides (see patent, paragraphs [0035] to [0040]). The process for reducing toxic emissions according to the patent in suit thus also includes the reduction of NOx according to D1. If process claim 1 is restricted to a process for the reduction of dioxin only then D1 is no longer novelty destroying. Claim 1 would then however lack an inventive step since the ammonia formed from urea reacts with the precursor materials during the combustion of the sintering process and this reaction of ammonia is known from D3 (see e.g. column 1, line 67 to column 2, line 7). According to the patent in suit urea is introduced in order to produce ammonia, which represents the effect of urea. The ammonia reduces the formation of dioxin and other toxic emissions. D1 suggests the addition of urea to form ammonia to reduce toxic emissions, particularly of nitrogen oxides (NOx). The same finding applies to the use claims of auxiliary requests II and III since they include the use of urea for producing ammonia to suppress the synthesis of chloro-organic pollutants so that the skilled person would combine D1 with D3 or D6. The primary functional feature of urea is the production of ammonia and the suppression of dioxins through the produced ammonia is only the secondary function. Document D3 is in the closely related technical field of waste material incineration. D3 mentions that the process can be generally applied onto any other material which is combustible to form gaseous chlorinated organic compounds, including precursors for dioxin formation (see column 3, lines 1 to 7). The technical problem to be solved starting from D1 would be the reduction of toxic emissions and particularly those of dioxins and furans. The fact that the process according to the patent in suit does not result in a reduction of NOx does not imply an invention. Consequently, none of the requests meets the requirements of Article 56 EPC.

XV. The respondent argued essentially as follows:

Documents D6, D6bis and D7 should not be admitted into the proceedings since they are late filed documents which are prima facie not relevant or at least no more relevant than D1 to D4. The post-published document D8 was submitted in order to support inventive step of the second non-medical use of urea in the claimed processes.

In accordance with G 9/92 and G 4/93 the extent of the appeal proceedings is determined by the appeal and the grounds of appeal as submitted by the appellant, i.e. Article 56 and 123(2) EPC. It is strange that Articles 54 and 123(3) EPC as mentioned in the summons should be dealt with although no explicit objections in this context were made by the appellant.

The claims have to be interpreted according to their features in order to determine the protection conferred to the patent (see G 2/88, point 2.5 of the reasons). According to decision G 6/88 the recognition or discovery of a previously unknown property of a known compound, such property proving a new technical effect, can clearly involve a valuable and inventive contribution to the art and the question referred to the Enlarged Board assumed that the only novel feature was the purpose for which the compound was to be used (see points 2.3 and 5 of the reasons). In relation to a claim whose wording clearly defines a new use of a known compound the proper interpretation will normally be such that the attainment of a new technical effect which underlies the new use is a technical feature of the claimed invention.

Taking account of Article 69 EPC a proper interpretation of the claim will require that a functional feature should be implied in the claim as a technical feature, i.e. that the compound actually achieves the particular effect (see point 7 of the reasons). Lack of novelty can only be found if all features of the claimed invention were communicated to the public even if such effect may have inherently taken place in the course of carrying out that which has previously been made available to the public (see points 8 and 9 of the reasons). Since the effect of dioxin suppression of urea was not known from D1, whose sintering process fully anticipated claim 1 as granted, the subject-matter of the claims of all requests on file is novel. D1 relates to the reduction of NOx and uses liquid and solid urea, also in combination with ammonia, in an amount of up to 4% (see page 2, last paragraph and page 3, second paragraph). However, according to the patent in suit NOx is not reduced. On the contrary the content of NOx rises slightly (see figure 2; and paragraph [0039]) which is in contradiction with the teaching of D1. It took a long time after the publication of D1 to realize the existence of the dioxin problem of the sinter industry and to make the invention. There are different ways of tackling the problem as shown by D4 which does not describe the addition of a chemical compound.

A use claim is to be seen as a method or process claim so that in accordance with G 5/83 (compare Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office, 4th edition 2001, section I.C.5.3.1) it should also protect the product directly obtainable. The products of the process claims, which attempt to define the second non-medical use of the process of D1, should be a virtually suppressed dioxin. The problem to be solved starting from D1 would be the reduction of toxic emissions, particularly dioxins and furans. D1, however, is not the correct starting point since it does not mention the dioxin problem, let alone that urea suppresses the formation of dioxins or furans. Document D3 concerns the incineration of waste material which is a more remote technical field so that the skilled person would not consider combining D3 with the sinter process of D1. The closest prior art document is in fact D4. Consequently, the subject-matter of the claims is novel and inventive.

Procedural Issues

1. Admissibility of documents D6, D6bis, D7 and D8 (Article 114(2) EPC)

The respondent argued that the documents D6, D6bis, D7 should not be admitted into the proceedings because they were late filed and no more relevant than the documents already in the proceeding and that the amendments made to claim 1 of the main request did not justify the late filing of these documents.

1.1 The Board cannot accept the respondent's arguments for the following reasons:

1.2 The Board notes that the appellant filed documents D6, D6bis and D7 with its grounds of appeal of 23 June 2003 and that they formed a direct response to the change of the patentee's case due to the new requests presented in the oral proceedings before the Opposition Division. The subject-matter of claim 1 without amendment was not considered to be new over D1 while after the introduction of a feature - based on the property of urea to suppress the formation of dioxins - which was interpreted as a functional feature, it was considered to be novel. The amendments made to claim 1 during the oral proceedings were therefore pivotal in maintaining the patent. These documents were filed in order to deal with issues relating to the knowledge of the dioxin suppressing properties of urea and of the dioxin problem as discussed before the department of first instance (see Minutes of the oral proceedings of 10 January 2003, points 4.3 and 4.4).

1.2.1 Since the opponent is only obliged to cite documents to substantiate the grounds of opposition to the extent opposed, i.e. as defined by the claims, it cannot be expected that these cited documents are necessarily the most relevant for any amendment not based on the claims as granted. The Board therefore judges that the new documents were filed in response to the patent proprietor's amendment.

1.2.2 The Board is also satisfied that the appellant introduced the documents D6, D6bis and D7 at the earliest possible moment, i.e. with the grounds of appeal, and that the respondent has had an adequate opportunity to assess them.

1.2.3 Documents D6 and D6bis disclose a pyrolysis method for treating organic waste material containing an organic chlorinated compound, such as 2,4,6-Trichlorophenole (which is a precursor material for dioxin formation) or dioxins contained in incineration ash or fly ash. According to the method the material to be thermally treated before the pyrolysis is mixed or impregnated with urea whereby the organic chlorinated compound or dioxin can be rapidly decomposed and made harmless at relatively low temperature of e.g. 300ºC (see English abstract; French translation, page 1, claim 1; and paragraphs [04], [05], [07] to [17], [21]).

The Board thus considers that the property of urea of suppression of the formation of dioxin was known from D6 on 1 June 1993 (publication date of D6). D6 thus showed that it was apparently not the patent proprietor who discovered this property of urea.

1.2.4 Document D7 - which is cited in D4 (see page 222, reference 2) - was published in 1993. D7 discloses that sintering plants are more important sources of PCDD/F emission than for example municipal solid waste incinerators and have to be regarded as being just as problematic as other thermical plants and that this fact was already known to governmental institutions at the end of 1992 (see page 311, first paragraph; page 314, first and fifth paragraph and "references").

The Board considers that document D7 provides another piece of evidence that waste incineration plants and sinter plants represent closely related technical fields which are both confronted with the problem of dioxin formation during the combustion of the materials to be treated. Furthermore, since these facts were known to governmental institutions at the end of 1992 or at least in 1993, it is considered to be evident that the skilled person was also aware of these facts at that time.

Hence document D7 represents evidence supporting the appellant's case that the skilled person when dealing with the formation of dioxins in sinter plants would consider the state of the art in the neighbouring field of waste incineration plants which deal with the same technical problem in accordance with decisions T 560/89 (OJ EPO, 1992, 725; see point 5.2 of the reasons), T 176/84 (OJ EPO, 1986, 050, see points 5.3.1 and 5.3.2) and T 195/84 (OJ EPO, 1986, 121; see points 8.2 to 8.5 of the reasons).

1.2.5 Consequently, the documents D6, D6bis and D7 are relevant to the present case, contrary to the respondent's allegations.

1.3 Document D8 was submitted by the respondent with its letter of 13 December 2005 in order to support inventive step. It represents a post-published document due to its publication date of March 2002. It describes investigations of dioxin formation mechanisms in sinter plants and how urea could reduce pollutant emissions of PCDD/Fs and SO2 (see abstract).

The appellant did not object to the introduction of document D8 into the proceedings.

1.4 The Board therefore admitted documents D6 to D8 into the proceedings.

2. Request of the respondent to remit the case to the department of first instance if the decision is based on documents D6/D6bis and/or D7 (Article 111(1) EPC)

After admitting the new documents into the proceedings, the Board has considered exercising its discretion under Article 111(1) EPC to remit the case to the Opposition Division, as requested by the respondent.

In the present case, since the new documents D6/D6bis and D7 are relevant, it could be argued that there has been a change in the factual framework, even if it represents neither a new ground nor fresh category of evidence. However, there is another important consideration, namely that claim 1 of the main request was amended during the oral proceedings before the first instance, as discussed above. Thus also the respondent has changed the factual framework. The Board judges that this counteracts the argument in favour of remitting based on the change in factual framework, and shifts the balance in favour of legal certainty. In the present case the patent was granted in 2001, i.e. over five years ago.

The Board considers that both parties had sufficient time to consider the new aspects of the case since the documents D6/D6bis and D7 were filed at the earliest possible time in appeal, and the respondent has twice been able to file new requests, so that the right to be heard under Article 113(1) EPC is met. Furthermore, both parties are equally treated, as implicitly required by Article 113(1) EPC. Neither party would be unfairly disadvantaged if the Board were to decide the case on the basis of the new documents. The respondent, like the appellant, has been limited to arguing the new case in front of one instance, i.e. before the Board, and was already able to change the factual framework before the Opposition Division at a point in the proceedings, i.e. at the oral proceedings before the Opposition Division, when the respondent could no longer react, since claim 1 on which the appeal is based was only submitted at the end of the first instance proceedings.

Therefore, the Board judges that it is not appropriate to remit the case to the first instance for further consideration, but to decide the case itself under Article 111(1) EPC. The respondent's request was thus refused.

3. Extent of appeal

The respondent argued that in accordance with G 9/92 and G 4/93 the extent of the appeal proceedings is determined by the notice of appeal and the grounds of appeal as submitted by the appellant, i.e. Articles 56 and 123(2) EPC. It argued that it is strange that Articles 54 and 123(3) EPC as mentioned in the summons should be dealt with even though no explicit objections in this context were made by the appellant.

3.1 The Board notes that the decisions G 9/92 and G 4/93 are particularly concerned with appeal proceedings wherein either the patent proprietor or the opponent is the sole appellant against an interlocutory decision maintaining the patent in amended form. In both cases the issue of reformatio in peius arises and neither the Board nor the non-appealing party (i.e. the opponent) may challenge the maintenance of the patent as amended in accordance with the interlocutory decision, whereas in the second case the patent proprietor (i.e. the non-appealing party) is primarily restricted to defending said amended patent. In the present case the opponent is the sole appellant. However, decisions G 9/92 and G 4/93 are not considered to be particularly relevant with respect to the extent of the appeal since it is not reformatio in peius that is at stake, but rather the rights of the Board under Article 114(1) EPC.

3.2 G 9/91 does not concern itself with which ground may be considered, but rather with which claims may be considered. It is G 10/91 which deals with grounds. According to this decision G 10/91 a Board of Appeal or Opposition Division is not obliged to examine opposition grounds beyond the statement under Rule 55(c) EPC (see "order"). This means in the present case that the issues of novelty and inventive step mentioned in the notice of opposition, which also were dealt with in the impugned decision (see decision of the Opposition Division, points 2.5 and 2.6 of the reasons), are included in the grounds to be examined. It is clearly stated in G 9/91 (whose decision reasons apply to G 10/91 as is stated in G 10/91) that in case of amendments of the claims or parts of a patent in the course of the opposition or appeal proceedings, that such amendments are to be fully examined as to their compatibility with the requirements of the EPC (e.g. Article 123(2) and (3) EPC; see point 19 of the reasons).

3.3 Thus it is evident that the issues of novelty, inventive step and at least of Article 123(2) and (3) EPC due to the amendments made to claim 1 of the main request before the first instance have to be dealt with in the present appeal.

4. Request of the respondent to refer two questions to the Enlarged Board of Appeal (Article 112 EPC)

In order to ensure uniform application of law, or if an important point of law arises the Board of Appeal shall, during proceedings on a case and either of its own motion or following a request from a party to the appeal, refer any question to the Enlarged Board of Appeal if it considers that a decision is required for the above purposes (see Article 112(1)a) EPC).

4.1 In the present case the respondent requested to refer the following two questions to the Enlarged Board of appeal:

(a) Whether it is a prerequisite for the applicability of G 2/88 and/or G 6/88 to have an original claim to a composition which is subsequently amended into a use-claim (see point V above); and

(b) whether it is allowable that the Board goes outside the scope of the appeal, which scope should be considered in conjunction with the effect of withdrawal of the appeal according to G 9/92 (see point VI above).

4.2 The first question (a) neither ensures a uniform application of law, since the Board is not aware of any decision dealing with this issue at all, let alone in a contradictory manner, nor is it a point of law whose answer would affect the outcome of the present case. The answer to this question would only be relevant to the issue of novelty of the process claims under consideration according to the main request and auxiliary requests I, IV and V. Consequently, the answer to the first question (a) is not considered to be relevant for deciding the specific present case. Since the subject-matter of the independent claims of all requests under consideration is considered to lack an inventive step (compare paragraph 6 below) no need exists to have said first question (a) answered.

4.3 The second question (b) concerning the extent of appeal has already been answered by the Enlarged Board of Appeal through its decisions G 9/91 and G 10/91 (compare point 3.2 above) so that also for this question no need exists to refer it to the Enlarged Board of Appeal.

4.4 Consequently, the Board refused the respondent's request to refer these two questions to the Enlarged Board of Appeal.

Substantive Issues

5. Allowability of amendments and novelty (Articles 123(2), (3) and 54 EPC)

The Board did not decide upon the issue of formal allowability under Article 123(2) and (3) EPC for any claim 1 of the six requests under consideration, even though it seemed to be apparent from the discussion during the oral proceedings concerning the protection conferred by the independent claims that major problems existed in this respect. The Board also did not decide the question of novelty under Article 54 EPC. This rather unusual manner of proceeding is based on the consideration that the subject-matter of claims 1 of all the requests under consideration is considered at least to lack an inventive step (compare paragraph 6 below).

6. Inventive step (Article 56 EPC)

6.1 The Board interpreted the process claims according to the main request and auxiliary requests I, IV and V in the light of the description as implying the use of urea for achieving the technical effect of suppressing toxic by-products generated during sintering of iron ore and particularly the formation of dioxins and furans and the release of acidic gases (see patent, paragraphs [0001] and [0019]). These processes, beside the suppression of the chloro-organic pollutants, also suppress other toxic by-products such as acidic gases. Therefore the scope of process claims 1 of the main request and of auxiliary request I which contain the wording "a method of suppressing the synthesis of chloro-organic pollutants, especially dioxins and furans, during iron ore sintering" corresponds essentially to that of claim 1 of auxiliary request IV which contains the slightly different wording "a method of reducing toxic emissions, more especially dioxin formation, from a sinterstrand, whilst keeping the quantity of ammonia released into the atmosphere at low levels and without need to introduce complex modifications to existing strand equipment during iron ore sintering". Furthermore, the scope of claim 1 of auxiliary request V differs from that according to claim 1 of the main request only in that the concentration range of urea, the ammonia-releasing compound, has been restricted to a range of 'between 0.02 to 0.04%' which definition includes both end points, since otherwise the wording should have read "in-between 0.02 to 0.04%".

6.1.1 The use claims according to auxiliary requests II and III were similarly interpreted in the light of the description of the patent as both achieving the effect of suppressing the synthesis of chloro-organic pollutants and the release of acidic gases during iron ore sintering.

6.1.2 Furthermore, it is evident from the patent in suit that urea per se does not suppress the synthesis of chloro-organic pollutants but only serves as a source material for releasing ammonia which then reacts with precursor materials of dioxins or furans and with the other toxic by-products during the sintering of the iron ore (see patent, paragraph [0027]; claim 1). This view is confirmed by one of the theories set out in the patent to how ammonia may act in combustion processes (see patent, paragraph [0011]).

6.2 Document D1

Document D1 discloses an iron ore sintering process with reduced NOx emissions comprising the addition of ammonia or compounds releasing ammonia when thermally decomposed, such as ammonia salts or urea, in the temperature range of from 50 to 600ºC (see French translation, claim and page 2, third and sixth paragraph). Urea can be added up to 4% by weight (see page 2, last paragraph to page 3, first paragraph). According to the examples the granulation is carried out with 6% water. Example 4 specifies a granulation of a mixture containing 6% of water and the homogenous addition of 0.02% by weight urea (see example 4). The iron ore feedstock is deposited onto a moving grate of a Dwight Lloyd type sintering apparatus (which implies a homogenous mixing step) and is combusted/pyrolysed (see page 1, "3. Explication détaillée de l'invention").

6.2.1 It is clear to the skilled person that the urea in the sintering process of D1 when heated above its melting point starts to decompose, thereby forming or releasing ammonia. This technical effect of urea belongs to the common general knowledge of any chemical engineer. It is also clear to the skilled person that the ammonia produced in the iron ore sintering process according to D1 inevitably will react with acidic gases formed during the sintering process to thereby reduce their emissions.

6.2.2 Thus the sintering process according to D1 is - except for the intended suppression of the synthesis of chloro-organic pollutants which is not mentioned in D1 - the same as that according to the patent in suit. This view was confirmed by the respondent who admitted that claim 1 of the patent in suit as granted was anticipated by the process according to D1.

6.2.3 Taking account of paragraphs 6.2 to 6.2.2 above document D1 is considered to represent the closest prior art for the claim types of all requests, i.e. process claims 1 and use claims 1. This is because the process of D1 - similarly to the patent in suit (see patent, paragraph [0019]) - also aims to reduce or suppress toxic emissions of the iron ore sintering process, particularly of NOx. Thus the general problem is the same. Furthermore, the process of D1 has the most relevant features in common with the patent in suit and thus requires a minimum of structural modifications. Last but not least, D1 is considered to represent the "most promising springboard" towards the invention which was available to the skilled person. Document D1 is thus considered to meet almost all criteria as set out in the existing jurisprudence of the Boards of Appeal (see Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office, 4th edition 2001, sections I.D.3 to I.D.3.5).

The respondent argued that D1 does not represent the closest prior art because it does not disclose the technical problem of suppressing the formation of dioxins or furans during the iron ore sintering. They argued that D4 represents the closest prior art because it mentions the reduction of dioxin and furan emission of iron ore sintering plants. This argument cannot be accepted because the process of D4 has less relevant features in common with the patent in suit than D1 since it suggests a different solution requiring a particular apparatus but not requiring the addition of any ammonia releasing compound.

6.3 Problem to be solved with respect to the process of document D1

The problem to be solved with respect to the sintering process of D1 is the suppression or reduction of chloro-organic pollutants, especially dioxins and furans (compare patent, paragraph [0019]).

6.4 Solution to the problem

This problem is solved by a process as defined in claim 1 of the main request or auxiliary requests I, IV and V or by a use as defined in claim 1 of auxiliary requests II and III.

It is credible that the claimed measures provide an effective solution to the technical problem (see e.g. patent, Table 1).

6.5 The Board considers, however, that the subject-matter of process claim 1 of each of the main request and auxiliary requests I, IV and V, as well as the use claim 1 of each of the auxiliary requests II and III is obvious for the person skilled in the art for the following reasons:

6.5.1 It is evident that the problem as such, namely that dioxins or furans are formed during iron ore sintering, belonged to the state of the art (see D4, abstract; and D7, page 311, first paragraph; page 314, first and fifth paragraph). Thus the recognition of the specific technical problem of reducing or suppressing chloro-organic pollutants as defined in point 6.3 above cannot render the subject-matter of claim 1 of any of the requests inventive.

6.5.2 The skilled person being confronted with the specific technical problem set out in point 6.3 above would, in the absence of useful suggestions in the sintering art as to how his problem might be solved, be expected to would look for solutions in neighbouring fields where the same problem is well known and of which the person skilled in the art of the sintering field must be expected to be aware.

6.5.3 In the present case, the person skilled in the art considering the problem would turn to the closely related technical field of waste incineration plants to see how similar problems had been solved there.

Document D3 is related to the technical field of waste material incineration and the suppression of dioxin production in the incineration of waste material (see abstract). According to D3 alkanolamines and inorganic bases (inhibitor mixtures) or ammonia can be used to inhibit dioxin formation (see column 1, line 67 to column 2, line 7). D3 additionally mentions that the process can generally be applied to any other material which is combustible to form gaseous chlorinated organic compounds, including precursors for dioxin formation (see column 3, lines 1 to 7). Furthermore, the inhibitor mixtures may be applied prior to combustion to the waste material or during the combustion to the fly ash (see column 4, lines 20 to 25).

The teaching of D3 implies to the person skilled in the art, i.e. the aforementioned chemical engineer, the use of ammonia or of alkanolamine containing mixtures, i.e. other derivatives of ammonia which when heated to certain temperatures decompose and thereby release ammonia, to suppress the formation of dioxins and furans during the combustion of waste material.

As a consequence, it is evident that the person skilled in the art would combine the teaching of document D3, i.e. the use of ammonia or an ammonia-releasing compound for the suppression of dioxins or furans in a combustion process, with the iron ore sintering process according to D1 wherein the precursor materials iron ore, coke, etc. in mixture with an ammonia releasing compound, namely urea, are combusted in order to obtain the same dioxin and furan suppressing effect as described in D3. Thereby the person skilled in the art would arrive at the subject-matter of claim 1 of each of the main request and the auxiliary requests I to V.

6.5.4 The respondent's arguments that the technical field of waste incineration plants is not closely related to the field of iron ore sintering processes cannot be accepted since it is proven by documents D4 (see abstract; and page 220, left hand column, first to third paragraphs) and D7 (compare point 1.2.4 above) that the person skilled in the art was aware of their parallels. Furthermore, this fact is also acknowledged in the discussion of the prior art in the patent in suit (see paragraphs [0008], [0009], [0013] and [0016]).

6.5.5 The respondent has argued that according to the patent in suit NOx is not reduced but that to the contrary the content of NOx rises slightly (see figure 2; and paragraph [0039]) which is in contradiction with the teaching of D1. This argument cannot be accepted since no claim 1 of any of the requests contains a corresponding limiting feature. Furthermore, not all process parameters are known from D1 (such as the oxygen content of the combustion gases) which would allow a comparison of the NOx concentrations.

6.6 The Board therefore concludes that the subject-matter of the independent claim 1 of each request does not involve an inventive step (Article 56 EPC).

7. Request of the respondent to allow the filing of new requests

The respondent's request for allowance to file new requests incorporating the subject-matter of claim 3 as maintained by the Opposition Division into the independent claims of the existing requests was only submitted at the end of the oral proceedings before the Board.

With respect to the allowability of these requests, the Board expresses the following opinion:

7.1 In the oral proceedings no new matter arose which had not already been addressed in the preceding written appeal proceedings. In the preliminary opinion of the Board as set out in its communication accompanying the invitation to oral proceedings, the Board inter alia expressed its provisional opinion that the subject-matter claimed appeared to lack inventive step. The respondent was thus aware well before the oral proceedings that the subject-matter of claim 1 of the main request was likely to be refused. Moreover, the respondent submitted auxiliary requests I to IV with its letter of 13 December 2005 with which it essentially attempted to claim more or less the same subject-matter as with the main request but at the same time tried to overcome formal objections to the main request under Article 123(2) and (3) EPC made by the Board. Additionally, the respondent submitted auxiliary request V with its letter of 9 January 2006 - which was filed only four days before the date of the oral proceedings - and thus after the one month time limit given in the Board's communication and therefore late filed. Claim 1 of auxiliary request V differs from that according to the main request only in that a narrower range for the urea concentration has been included which, however, still included the value according to document D1.

7.2 The fact that the respondent had filed its auxiliary request V before the oral proceedings shows that the respondent could have filed such further requests earlier than at the end of the oral proceedings.

7.3 This request to file further requests was objected to by the appellant who argued that it cannot immediately present arguments with respect to such new requests.

7.4 Furthermore, it is also not prima facie apparent to the Board that the use of pelletized urea according to such new requests would result in subject-matter which would be considered to involve an inventive step.

7.5 In this context the Board also notes that the respondent had chosen not to present its complete case in a response to the appeal (compare point III, above) as required by Article 10a (1)b) and (2) of the amended Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal. These amended Rules entered into force on 1 May 2003 for all cases in which the notice of appeal was received by the EPO after the date of the entry into force. Since the notice of appeal in the present case was filed on 5 May 2003 the amended Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal apply to the present case. The respondent when questioned by the Board did not give the reasons for not presenting its complete case. As a consequence of this fact, however, the respondent was always one step behind the action of the appellant but on its own responsibility.

7.6 Even without considering Articles 10b(1) and (3) of the amended Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal it is established jurisprudence of the Boards of Appeal that in such case late-filed amended claims are not admitted (see Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO, 4th edition 2001, chapter VII.D.14.2).

Therefore the request of the respondent to file new requests was refused.

Order

ORDER

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The request to send questions to the Enlarged Board of Appeal is refused.

2. The decision under appeal is set aside.

3. The patent is revoked.

Footer - Service & support
  • Service & support
    • Website updates
    • Availability of online services
    • FAQ
    • Publications
    • Procedural communications
    • Contact us
    • Subscription centre
    • Official holidays
    • Glossary
Footer - More links
  • Jobs & careers
  • Press centre
  • Single Access Portal
  • Procurement
  • Boards of Appeal
Facebook
European Patent Office
EPO Jobs
Instagram
EuropeanPatentOffice
Linkedin
European Patent Office
EPO Jobs
EPO Procurement
X (formerly Twitter)
EPOorg
EPOjobs
Youtube
TheEPO
Footer
  • Legal notice
  • Terms of use
  • Data protection and privacy
  • Accessibility