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
      • Searching Asian documents: patent search and monitoring services
      • EP full-text search
      • Bibliographic coverage in Espacenet and OPS
      • Full-text coverage in Espacenet and OPS
    • Legal information
      • Overview
      • European Patent Register
      • European Patent Bulletin
      • European Case Law Identifier sitemap
      • Searching Asian documents
      • Third-party observations
    • Business information
      • Overview
      • PATSTAT
      • IPscore
      • Patent insight reports
    • Data
      • Overview
      • Linked open EP data
      • Bulk data sets
      • Web services
      • Coverage, codes and statistics
    • 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

    UP search

    Learn about the Unitary Patent in patent knowledge products and services

  • 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
    • MyEPO services
      • Overview
      • Understand our services
      • Get access
      • Find a professional representative
      • File with us
      • Interact on your files
      • Online Filing & fee payment outages
      • Tutorials
    • Forms
      • Overview
      • Request for examination
    • Fees
      • Overview
      • European fees (EPC)
      • International fees (PCT)
      • Unitary Patent fees (UP)
      • Fee payment and refunds
      • Warning

    UP

    Unitary Patent

  • 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
      • EPC Guidelines
      • PCT-EPO Guidelines
      • Guidelines revision cycle
      • Extension / validation system
      • London Agreement
      • National law relating to the EPC
      • Unitary patent system
      • National law relating to the UP
    • 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

    legal text

    Legal texts

  • 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
      • About the award
      • Categories and prizes
      • Meet the finalists
      • Nominations
      • Watch the 2022 ceremony
    • 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
      • Firefighting technologies
      • Green tech in focus
      • CodeFest on Green Plastics
      • Clean energy technologies
      • IP and youth
      • Research institutes
      • Women inventors
      • Fighting coronavirus
      • 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

    Listen to our podcast

  • Learning

    Learning

    The e-Academy – the point of access to your learning

    Go to overview 

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

    European Patent Academy

    Boost your IP knowledge with (e-)training from the European Patent Academy

  • 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
      • A glimpse of the planned activities
      • Kids’ collaborative art competition
      • 50 Leading Tech Voices
    • Legal foundations and member states
      • Overview
      • Legal foundations
      • Member states of the European Patent Organisation
      • Extension states
      • Validation states
    • Governance
      • Overview
      • Communiqués
      • Calendar
      • Select Committee documents
      • Administrative Council
    • Principles & strategy
      • Overview
      • Our mission, vision, values and corporate policy
      • Public consultation on the EPO's Strategic Plan 2028
      • Towards a New Normal
    • Leadership & management
      • Overview
      • President António Campinos
      • Management Advisory Committee
    • Social responsibility
      • Overview
      • Environment and sustainability
      • Art collection
    • Services & activities
      • Overview
      • Our services & structure
      • Consulting our users
      • European and international co-operation
      • European Patent Academy
      • Chief Economist
      • Ombuds Office
      • Reporting wrongdoing
    • Procurement
      • Overview
      • Procurement forecast
      • Doing business with the EPO
      • Procurement procedures
      • 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
      • EPO Data Hub
      • Clarification on data sources
    • History
      • Overview
      • 1970s
      • 1980s
      • 1990s
      • 2000s
      • 2010s
      • 2020s

    about us

    Patent Index 2022

 
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
        • Cross-reference index for Euro-PCT applications
        • EP authority file
        • Help
      • Searching Asian documents
      • EP full-text search
      • Bibliographic coverage in Espacenet and OPS
      • Full-text coverage in Espacenet
    • 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
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • BG - Federated Register Service
            • GB - Federated Register Service
            • NL - Federated Register Service
            • MK - Federated Register Service
            • ES - Federated Register Service
            • GR - Federated Register Service
            • SK - Federated Register Service
            • FR - Federated Register Service
            • MT - Federated Register Service
          • Register events
      • European Patent Bulletin
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Download Bulletin
        • EP Bulletin search
        • Help
      • European Case Law Identifier sitemap
      • Searching Asian documents
      • Third-party observations
    • Business information
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • PATSTAT
      • IPscore
        • Go back
        • Release notes
      • Patent insight reports
    • Data
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • 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)
          • Go back
          • EBD files (weekly download) - free of charge
            • Go back
            • Secure EBD ST.36 files (weekly download) - for national patent offices only
        • Boards of Appeal decisions
        • EP full-text data for text analytics
      • Web services
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Open Patent Services (OPS)
        • European Publication Server
      • Coverage, codes and statistics
        • Go back
        • Weekly updates
        • Updated regularly
    • Helpful resources
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • First time here? Patent information explained.
        • 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
          • Unitary Patent Guide
          • Main features
          • Applying for a Unitary Patent
          • Cost of a Unitary Patent
          • Translation and compensation
          • Start date
        • 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
        • Online Filing 2.0 pilot
        • MyEPO Portfolio - pilot phase
        • Online Filing 2.0 pilot continuation
        • Exchange data with us using an API
      • Get access
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Installation and activation
      • Find a professional representative
      • File with us
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • What if our online filing services are down?
        • Release notes
      • Interact on your files
      • Online Filing & fee payment outages
      • Tutorials
    • 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
      • Request for examination
  • 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
      • EPC Guidelines
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Archive
      • PCT-EPO Guidelines
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Archive
      • Guidelines revision cycle
      • Extension / validation system
      • London Agreement
      • National law relating to the EPC
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Archive
      • Unitary Patent system
      • 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
      • About the award
      • Categories and prizes
      • Meet the finalists
      • Nominations
      • Watch the 2023 ceremony
      • European Inventor Network
        • Go back
        • Activities granted in 2023
    • 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
      • Firefighting technologies
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Detection and prevention of fires
        • Fire extinguishing
        • Protective equipment
        • Post-fire restoration
      • Green tech in focus
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • About green tech
        • Renewable energies
        • Energy transition technologies
        • Building a greener future
      • CodeFest on Green Plastics
      • Clean energy technologies
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Renewable energy
        • Carbon-intensive industries
        • Energy storage and other enabling technologies
      • IP and youth
      • Research institutes
      • Women inventors
      • 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
      • 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
        • Patents and standards
        • Artificial intelligence
        • Fourth Industrial Revolution
      • Additive manufacturing
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • About AM
        • AM innovation
      • Books by EPO experts
    • Podcast
  • Learning
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • European Patent Academy
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Learning activities
      • Learning Paths
    • Professional hub
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • EPAC - European patent administration certification
      • EQE - European Qualifying Examination
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Archive
        • Candidates successful in the European qualifying examination
        • Compendium
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Pre-examination
          • Paper A
          • Paper B
          • Paper C
          • Paper D
    • Learning resources by area of interest
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Patent granting
      • Technology transfer and dissemination
      • Patent enforcement and litigation
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Patent enforcement in Europe
        • Patent litigation in Europe
    • 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
        • Inventors' handbook
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Introduction
          • Disclosure and confidentiality
          • Novelty and prior art
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • Is the idea ‘obvious’?
            • Prior art searching
            • Professional patent searching
            • Simple Espacenet searching
            • What is prior art?
            • Why is novelty important?
          • Competition and market potential
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • Research guidelines
          • Assessing the risk ahead
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • Exploitation routes
            • Significant commercial potential
            • Significant novelty
            • What about you?
            • What if your idea is not novel but does have commercial potential?
          • Proving the invention
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • Help with design or redesign
            • Prototype strategy
          • Protecting your idea
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • Forms of IPR
            • Patenting strategy
            • The patenting process
          • Building a team and seeking funding
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • Building a team
            • Sources of funding
            • Sources of help for invention
          • Business planning
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • Constructing a business plan
            • Keep it short!
          • Finding and approaching companies
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • First contact
            • Meetings
          • Dealing with companies
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • Advance or guaranteed payment
            • Companies and your prototype
            • Full agreement – and beyond
            • Negotiating a licensing agreement
            • Reaching agreement
            • Royalties
        • 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
          • For IP professionals
          • For business decision-makers
          • For stakeholders of the innovation ecosystem
        • IP clinics
      • EQE Candidates
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Coffee-break questions
        • Daily D questions
        • European qualifying examination - Guide for preparation
      • 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
        • Academic Research Programme
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Completed research projects
          • Current research projects
        • 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
        • IP Teaching Kit
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Download modules
        • Intellectual property course design manual
  • About us
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • The EPO at a glance
    • 50 years of the EPC
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • 50 Leading Tech Voices
      • 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
    • Governance
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Communiqués
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • 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
      • Towards a New Normal
      • Data protection & privacy notice
    • Leadership & management
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • About the President
      • Management Advisory Committee
    • Procurement
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Procurement forecast
      • Doing business with the EPO
      • Procurement procedures
      • About eTendering
      • Procurement portal
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • e-Signing contracts
      • Invoicing
      • 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
        • Statistics
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Search
          • Examination
          • Opposition
      • 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
      • 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
    • Statistics and trends
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Statistics & Trends Centre
      • EPO Data Hub
      • Clarification on data sources
    • Social responsibility
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Environment
      • Art collection
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • The collection
        • Let's talk about art
        • Artists
        • Media library
        • What's on
        • Publications
        • Contact
    • History
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • 1970s
      • 1980s
      • 1990s
      • 2000s
      • 2010s
      • 2020s
    • Transparency portal
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • General
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • 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
  • Boards of Appeal
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • Decisions of the Boards of Appeal
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Recent decisions
      • Selected decisions
    • Procedure
    • Annual reports
      • Go back
      • Overview
    • Organisation
      • 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
        • Composition of the Presidium
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Archive
    • Code of Conduct
    • Business distribution scheme
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Technical boards of appeal by IPC in 2023
      • Archive
    • Annual list of cases
    • Communications
    • Publications
    • Case Law of the Boards of Appeal
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Archive
    • Case Law from the Contracting States to the EPC
    • Oral proceedings
  • Service & support
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • Website updates
    • Availability of online services
      • Go back
      • Overview
    • FAQ
      • Go back
      • Overview
    • Publications
    • Ordering
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • 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
      • Legal resources
      • Directories of patent attorneys
      • Patent databases, registers and gazettes
      • Disclaimer
    • Contact us
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Filing options
      • Locations
      • Specific contact
      • Surveys
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Search services
        • Examination services, final actions and publication
        • Opposition services
        • Patent filings
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Detailed methodology
          • Archive
        • Online Services
        • Patent information
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Innovation process survey
        • Customer services
        • Filing services
        • Website
        • Survey on electronic invoicing
        • Companies innovating in clean and sustainable technologies
    • Subscription centre
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Subscribe
      • Change preferences
      • Unsubscribe
    • Official holidays
    • Forums
    • Glossary
Board of Appeals
Decisions

Recent decisions

Overview
  • 2023 decisions
  • 2022 decisions
  • 2021 decisions
https://www.epo.org/en/node/t091509eu1
  1. Home
  2. T 1509/09 (High density oligonucleotide arrays/AFFYMETRIX) 05-07-2012
Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email

T 1509/09 (High density oligonucleotide arrays/AFFYMETRIX) 05-07-2012

European Case Law Identifier
ECLI:EP:BA:2012:T150909.20120705
Date of decision
05 July 2012
Case number
T 1509/09
Petition for review of
-
Application number
96931598.5
IPC class
C12Q 1/68
C07H 21/04
Language of proceedings
EN
Distribution
DISTRIBUTED TO BOARD CHAIRMEN (C)

Download and more information:

Decision in EN 48.44 KB
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the European Patent Register
Bibliographic information is available in:
EN
Versions
Unpublished
Application title

Expression monitoring by hybridization to high density

Applicant name
Affymetrix, Inc.
Opponent name

Agilent Technologies, Inc.

Combimatrix Corporation

Clondiag Chip Technologies GmbH

Illumina GmbH

Board
3.3.08
Headnote
-
Relevant legal provisions
European Patent Convention Art 123(2)
Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 13(1)
Keywords

Admissibility of the Main Request and of Auxiliary Request A (yes)

Main Request and Auxiliary Request A - added subject-matter (yes)

Admissibility of the Auxiliary Request B (no)

Catchword
-
Cited decisions
T 0453/03
T 0221/06
T 1685/07
Citing decisions
T 1617/08

I. European patent No. 0 853 679, based on the European patent application No. 96 931 598.5 and published as International patent application WO 97/10365 (hereinafter "the application as filed"), was granted with 42 claims. Granted claim 1 read as follows:

1. A method of simultaneously monitoring the expression of a multiplicity of genes, said method comprising:

(a) providing a pool of target nucleic acids comprising RNA transcripts of some of said genes, or nucleic acids derived from said RNA transcripts;

(b) providing a plurality of different probes for analysis of each of the RNA transcripts that are to be monitored; said probes being immobilized as an array on a surface of a substrate in known locations at a density greater than 60 different probes per cm**(2); said array probes including match and control probes; the array comprising more than 100 different probes, each probe attached to the surface through a single covalent bond;

(c) hybridizing said pool of nucleic acids to the array of nucleic acid probes; and

(d) quantifying hybridization of said target nucleic acids to said array by comparing hybridisation of match and control probes wherein said quantifying provides a measure of the levels of transcription of said genes."

II. The patent was originally opposed by four opponents (opponents 01 to 04). With a letter dated 2 February 2006, opponent 03 withdrew its opposition. On 12 September 2006, oral proceedings took place before the opposition division and an intervention under Article 105 EPC was filed on 3 December 2007.

III. In an interlocutory decision dated 11 May 2009, the opposition division considered the Main Request (claims as granted) to contain subject matter that extended beyond the content of the application as filed (Article 100(c) EPC, Article 123(2) EPC) and decided to maintain the patent in suit on the basis of a first Auxiliary Request filed at the oral proceedings on 12 September 2006. Claim 1 of this first Auxiliary Request was identical to claim 1 as granted except for part (b) which read as follows:

"... (b) providing a plurality of different probes for analysis of each of the RNA transcripts that are to be monitored; said probes being immobilized as an array on a surface of a substrate in known locations at a density greater than 60 different probes per cm**(2); said array probes including control probes and a plurality of match probes; the array comprising more than 100 different probes, each probe attached to the surface through a single covalent bond; ..."

(italics by the board to show the amendment introduced into part (b) of granted claim 1 in addition to the deletion of the text "match and" present in granted claim 1(b) after the term "including"; cf. Section I, supra).

IV. Notices of appeal against this decision and statements setting out their grounds of appeal were filed by the patentee (appellant I) and opponents 01 and 04 (appellants II and III, respectively). Appellant I requested the maintenance of the patent as granted.

V. With letter dated 9 February 2010, appellant I replied to the grounds of appeal of the other appellants and filed 10 Auxiliary Requests. The first Auxiliary Request was the Auxiliary Request on which the opposition division had decided to maintain the patent. Except for Auxiliary Requests 2, 9 and 10, all other Auxiliary Requests had originally been filed on 12 July 2006 in preparation of the oral proceedings before the opposition division.

VI. Appellants II and III submitted further comments on appellant I's reply and Auxiliary Requests.

VII. On 10 February 2012, the board summoned the parties to oral proceedings and, in a communication pursuant to Article 15(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal (RPBA) annexed thereto, informed the parties of its preliminary, non-binding opinion on some of the substantive issues of the present appeal.

VIII. With letter dated 4 June 2012, appellant I replied to the board's communication and filed a Main Request and 26 Auxiliary Requests. The Main Request and Auxiliary Request 1 to 10 were identical to those filed on 9 February 2010 but in a different order, the claims as granted and the Auxiliary Request on which the opposition division had decided to maintain the patent in suit (previous Main Request and first Auxiliary Request) were now appellant I's Auxiliary Request 9 and 10. Appellant I's Main Request was identical to Auxiliary Request 2 filed on 9 February 2010. Auxiliary Requests 11 to 26 were new in the proceedings and based on combinations of two (AR11 to AR16), three (AR17 to AR24) or four (AR25 and AR26) of the appellant I's previous requests (MR, AR1 to AR10).

IX. With letters dated 12 June 2012 and 16 February 2012, the opponent 02 and the intervener/opponent 05 (parties as of right) informed the board of their intention not to attend the oral proceedings.

X. Oral proceedings took place on 5 July 2012. At these proceedings, appellant I maintained its Main Request (originally filed on 9 February 2012 as Auxiliary Request 2), withdrew all its previous Auxiliary Requests and filed two new Auxiliary Requests (Auxiliary Requests A and B), each with a single claim.

XI. The Main Request contained 42 claims identical to the 42 granted claims except for independent claims 1 and 22. Claim 1 of the Main Request was identical to claim 1 of the first Auxiliary Request on which the opposition division decided to maintain the patent in suit (cf. Section III, supra), except for part (b) which read as follows:

"... (b) providing a plurality of different probes for analysis of each of the RNA transcripts that are to be monitored; said probes being immobilized as an array on a surface of a substrate in known locations at a density greater than 60 different probes per cm**(2); said array probes including control probes and, for each of the RNA transcripts that are to be monitored, a plurality of match probes; the array comprising more than 100 different probes, each probe attached to the surface through a single covalent bond; ..."

(italics by the board to show the amendment introduced into part (b) of claim 1; cf. Section III, supra).

The amendment introduced into part (b) of claim 1 corresponded to parts of the subject-matter of claim 3 as granted.

XII. Claim 1 of Auxiliary Request A, the sole claim of this request, was identical to granted claim 1 (cf. Section I, supra), except for part (b) which read as follows:

"... (b) providing a plurality of different probes for analysis of each of the RNA transcripts that are to be monitored; said probes being immobilized as an array on a surface of a substrate in known locations at a density greater than 60 different probes per cm**(2); said array probes including match and control probes; the array comprising more than 100 different probes, each probe attached to the surface through a single covalent bond; and, for each gene, said array comprising at least 10 different nucleic acid probes complementary to subsequences of that gene; ..."

(italics by the board to show the amendment introduced into part (b) of claim 1 as granted; cf. Section I, supra).

XIII. Claim 1 of Auxiliary Request B, the sole claim of this request, was identical to claim 1 of Auxiliary Request A, except for the introduction of two additional amendments, one in part (b) and one in part (d) of this claim. The amendment in part (b), introduced after the wording "... including match and control probes ...", read as follows:

"..., wherein the control nucleic acid probes comprise mismatch control probes such that for each matched probe there exists a mismatch control probe; ..."

The amendment in part (d) of claim 1, introduced after the wording "... hybridisation of match and control probes ...", read as follows:

"... wherein said quantifying comprises either:

(a) calculating the difference in hybridization signal intensity between each of said nucleic acid probes and its corresponding mismatch control probe; or

(b) calculating the average difference in hybridization signal intensity between each of said nucleic acid probes and its corresponding mismatch control probe for each gene; and ..."

The amendments introduced into parts (b) and (d) of claim 1 corresponded, respectively, to subject-matter of claims 8 and 9 as granted.

XIV. The arguments of appellant I, insofar as they are relevant to the present decision, may be summarized as follows:

Admissibility of the Main Request

The Main Request was filed (as Auxiliary Request 2) in direct reply to the grounds of appeal of appellants II and III within the time limit set by Article 12(1)(b) RPBA and thus, at an early stage of the appeal proceedings. The amendment introduced into part (b) of claim 1 was in line with that introduced into claim 1(b) of the first Auxiliary Request on which the opposition division decided to maintain the patent (cf. Sections III and XI, supra). The amendment was a serious attempt to overcome an objection raised by appellants II and III in their grounds of appeal, it was straightforward and did not add any complexity to the case. On the contrary, it intended to simplify the case and did not involve any examination that could delay the proceedings.

Main Request

Article 100(c) EPC; Article 123(2) EPC

The term "plurality" only meant "more than one" or "at least two", thereby excluding the minimal embodiment considered by the opposition division to be embraced by the granted claims and to lack a basis in the application as filed. Although, in the application as filed, the term "plurality" was found only in the context of a computer-implemented method, the application as filed constantly and consistently referred to a plurality or to a set of match probes (plural) opposed to a single target sequence (singular), as shown by the numerous references to "large numbers of probes" and to the use of several probes found in the application as filed, such as on page 9, lines 29-30, page 21, lines 1-3, 15 and 19-20, page 22, lines 9-10, page 34, lines 18-19, page 36, lines 10-11, page 37, lines 15-16 and page 38, lines 5-7 and 11-12. Thus, there was a basis in the application as filed for using plural terms (plurality) when referring to match probes and singular terms for target sequences. This teaching was also conveyed to the skilled person by references to specific increasing and decreasing numbers of probes found, respectively, on page 5, lines 15-17 and page 22, lines 6-8 of the application as filed. From these references, the skilled person would have understood that, in the method of claim 1, a plurality of probes had to be used for each target gene. There was no lower limit for the number of probes to be used in the method of claim 1 as long as there was more than one (a plurality) for each target gene.

The application as filed explicitly referred also to "a multiplicity of probes", in particular on page 10, line 16, page 38, line 17 and page 39, line 9. Although these references were found in the context of a method of selecting a set of oligonucleotide probes or a method of optimizing a probe set, it was directly and unambiguously derivable from the content of the application as filed that this "multiplicity of probes" was to be used in the method of claim 1, since this method was essential to the disclosure of the application as filed and no other possible use for this "multiplicity of probes" could be derived from the application as filed. This was the sole possible interpretation if the application as filed was read with the mind of a skilled person willing to understand.

Admissibility of Auxiliary Requests A and B

The subject-matter of Auxiliary Request A was filed at the beginning of both the opposition (claim 1 of Auxiliary Request 6 filed on 12 July 2006 in preparation of the oral proceedings before the opposition division) and the appeal proceedings (claim 1 of Auxiliary Request 8 filed on 9 February 2010 in reply to appellants II and III's grounds of appeal and claim 1 of Auxiliary Request 6 filed on 4 June 2012 in reply to the board's communication pursuant to Article 15(1) RPBA). Although Auxiliary Request A was filed at the oral proceedings before the board, the subject-matter of this request was not late filed. Auxiliary Request A had only a single claim and thus, it reduced the complexity of the case and contributed to the procedural economy of the appeal proceedings. In this sense, it was not a reintroduction of a previously withdrawn Auxiliary Request which, with 42 claims, increased the complexity of the case.

The subject-matter of Auxiliary Request B was a combination of subject-matter that was present at the beginning of both the opposition (claims 1 of Auxiliary Requests 2 and 6 filed on 12 July 2006 in preparation of the oral proceedings before the opposition division) and the appeal proceedings (claims 1 of Auxiliary Requests 4 and 8 filed on 9 February 2010 in reply to appellants II and III's grounds of appeal). The subject-matter of Auxiliary Request B was identical to that of claim 1 of Auxiliary Request 15 - filed on 4 June 2012 within the time limit set out by the board in its communication pursuant to Article 15(1) RPBA and in direct reply to the board's preliminary opinion expressed therein. Thus, Auxiliary Request B was not filed at a late stage of the appeal proceedings. The subject-matter of Auxiliary Request B was immediately derivable from a direct combination of subject-matter already present in previous Auxiliary Requests and it clearly addressed in a straightforward manner two objections raised by the opponents at the beginning of the opposition proceedings. None of the other appellants and parties in appeal proceedings could be surprised by the subject-matter of Auxiliary Request B. Moreover, since Auxiliary Request B had only a single claim, it clearly reduced the complexity of the case and contributed to the procedural economy of the appeal proceedings.

Auxiliary Request A

Article 100(c) EPC; Article 123(2) EPC

Basis for the amendment introduced into part (b) of claim 1 of Auxiliary Request A was found on page 5, lines 17-18 and page 6, lines 9-11 of the application as filed. Although reference was made therein to oligonucleotide probes and not to nucleic acid probes, a probe was clearly defined in the application as filed as being always an oligonucleotide (page 11, line 25). It was well-known in the art and clearly derivable from the application as filed that all oligonucleotides were nucleic acids (page 11, line 23). Accordingly, no difference was made in the application as filed between nucleic acid probes and oligonucleotide probes. The terms were used interchangeably and meant the same, as clearly conveyed to the skilled person by the disclosure of the application as filed when taken as a whole.

XV. The arguments of appellants II and III, insofar as they are relevant to the present decision, may be summarized as follows:

Admissibility of the Main Request

No objections were expressed against the admissibility of the Main Request.

Main Request

Article 100(c) EPC; Article 123(2) EPC

In the application as filed, the term "plurality" was found only in the context of a computer-implemented method but not in the method of claim 1 (page 10, line 25 and claims 65 and 73 of the application as filed). Both methods were different and the former could not be a basis for the latter. The term "a plurality" was different from the wording "large numbers" found on pages 21 and 22 of the application as filed, the former comprising embodiments with a low number of probes (two, three, etc.) that were not embraced by the latter wording. Embodiments with a low number of probes were also not supported by the disclosures of specific numbers of probes found on page 5, lines 15-17 (more than 10) and on page 22, lines 6-8 (even 10) of the application as filed. The references in the application as filed to "a multiplicity of probes" were found in the context of methods for selecting and/or optimizing a set of probes which were different from the method of claim 1. There was no disclosure in the application as filed linking these methods with that of claim 1, i.e. stating that all probes selected and/or optimized by these methods had to be used in the method of claim 1.

Admissibility of Auxiliary Requests A and B

Although both Auxiliary Requests were late filed in appeal proceedings, no objections were raised against the admissibility of Auxiliary Request A. However, appellant III noted that since Auxiliary Request 6 filed on 4 June 2012 (claim 1 of Auxiliary Request 6 was identical to claim 1 of Auxiliary Request A) was withdrawn during oral proceedings before the board, Auxiliary Request A reintroduced subject-matter previously withdrawn and thus, its admissibility spoke against procedural economy.

Auxiliary Request B was filed at oral proceedings before the board and thus, at a late stage of appeal proceedings. The subject-matter of this request was not straightforward but only derivable from a combination of different Auxiliary Requests previously filed in appeal proceedings. Although claim 1 of Auxiliary Request B was identical to claim 1 of Auxiliary Request 15 filed by appellant I in reply to the board's communication pursuant to Article 15(1) RPBA, Auxiliary Request 15 was filed one month before the oral appeal proceedings together with a large number of other Auxiliary Requests that contained all possible combinations of subject-matter intending to address several different, but not all, possible objections. According to the case law of the Boards of Appeal, this was a "pick and mix" approach that was not to be allowed (T 745/03 of 22 September 2005 and T 221/06 of July 2008).

Auxiliary Request A

Article 100(c) EPC; Article 123(2) EPC

The sentences on page 5, lines 17-18 and on page 6, lines 9-11 of the application as filed referred to oligonucleotide probes. The definitions of nucleic acid and oligonucleotide found on page 11, lines 19-22 and lines 23-24, respectively, showed that they were different, the former being broader than the latter. Nucleic acid probes were not identical to oligonucleotide probes, they were not merely equivalent and the terms could not be interchangeably used one for the other. Oligonucleotide probes could not be directly and unambiguously equated to nucleic acid probes. There was no basis in the application as filed for the specific wording introduced into part (b) of claim 1 of Auxiliary Request A.

XVI. Appellant I (patentee) requested that the decision under appeal be set aside and that the patent be maintained on the basis of the Main Request filed with letter of 4 June 2012 or, in the alternative, on the basis of Auxiliary Request A or B filed on 5 July 2012 during the oral proceedings before the board.

XVII. Appellant II (opponent 01) and appellant III (opponent 04) both requested that the decision under appeal be set aside and that the patent be revoked.

Admissibility of the Main Request

1. According to Article 13(1) RPBA, "(a)ny amendment to a party's case after it has filed its grounds of appeal or reply may be admitted and considered at the Board's discretion. The discretion shall be exercised in view of inter alia the complexity of the new subject matter submitted, the current state of the proceedings and the need of procedural economy".

2. In the statement of grounds of appeal, appellant I requested, as its sole request, the maintenance of the patent as granted. The present Main Request was originally filed by appellant I as Auxiliary Request 2 - together with other 9 Auxiliary Requests - in reply to the grounds of appeal of appellants II and III (cf. Section V supra). As a direct reply to the board's communication pursuant to Article 15(1) RPBA, appellant I changed the order of its previous requests and made its Auxiliary Request 2 its new Main Request - filing also 16 additional Auxiliary Requests (cf. Section VIII supra).

3. In view of the fact that the Main Request was originally filed (as Auxiliary Request 2) in reply to the grounds of appeal of appellants II and III's, it is arguable whether it is necessary for the board to exercise its discretion for admitting it into the appeal proceedings. In any case, the Main Request, which was not filed in the first instance proceedings, was already present at an early stage of the appeal proceedings.

4. The Main Request is identical to the granted claims except for claims 1 and 22. Claim 1 of the Main Request contains an amendment in step (b) ("for each of the RNA transcripts that are to be monitored, a plurality of match probes"; cf. Section XI supra) that is in line with the amendment or feature introduced into claim 1(b) of the Auxiliary Request on which the opposition division decided to maintain the patent ("a plurality of match probes"; cf. Section III supra). The amendment of the Main Request further defines this feature in order to overcome the objections raised by appellants II and III in their grounds of appeal. It is not complex and it does not negatively affect procedural economy.

5. Thus, the board sees no reason not to admit the Main Request into the appeal proceedings.

Main request

Article 100(c) EPC; Article 123(2) EPC

6. The passages of the application as filed cited by appellant I as providing a basis for the amendment introduced into part(b) of claim 1 of the Main Request refer to a "large numbers of probes" (cf. page 21, lines 1-3, 15, 19-20 and page 22, lines 9-10), to a very specific number of probes (cf. page 5, lines 15-17 and page 22, lines 6-8) or to probes in general without further definition (cf. page 34, lines 18-19, page 36, lines 10-11, page 37, lines 15-16 and page 38, lines 5-7, 11-12). None of these references contains the term "plurality" which is found only in the context of a computer-implemented method of monitoring expression of genes which is different from the method of claim 1 (cf. page 10, lines 21-30 and claims 65 and 73 of the application as filed).

7. The board agrees with appellant I that the expression "a plurality" means "more than one" or "at least two" and thereby, it excludes a minimal embodiment containing only a single match probe; an embodiment considered by the opposition division to be embraced by the granted claims and to lack a formal basis in the application as filed (cf. Section XIV supra). However, the Main Request embraces embodiments that make use of a limited low number of match probes, such as "at least two" or "more than one", i.e. two, three, etc. Neither the references to "a large number of probes" nor those to a specific number of probes ("more than 10", "most preferably more than 1000", "at least 10", etc.) provide a basis for embodiments comprising these limited low number of probes. Likewise, the references founds in the application as filed to probes in general have to be read in the light of these other references ("a large number of probes", "more than 10", etc.). The expression "a plurality" cannot be directly and unambiguously derived from these references to probes in general.

8. Appellant I has also referred to the expression "a multiplicity of probes" found in the application as filed in the context of methods for selecting and optimizing a set of probes. Although these methods are different from that of claim 1, appellant I argues that it is directly derivable from the whole disclosure of the application as filed that these selected and optimized "multiplicity of probes" are to be used in the method of claim 1. Thus, the selected and optimized "multiplicity of probes" by the former methods are in a way equivalent to, and provide a basis for, the "plurality of probes" in the method of claim 1 (cf. Section XIV supra).

9. The board cannot follow this argument. It is arguable whether all, some or only a few probes of these "multiplicity of probes" selected and optimized by the methods disclosed in the application as filed are, always and exclusively, to be used in the method of claim 1. In the absence of a clear disclosure linking, in a straightforward manner, these selection and optimizing methods with that of claim 1, the use of these "multiplicity of probes" indicated by appellant I may well be obvious to the skilled person. However, according to the case law, obviousness is not a criterium for assessing whether subject-matter is supported by the application as filed. It is also not a question of reading the disclosure of the application as filed with a mind willing to understand but only of assessing whether the subject-matter is directly and unambiguously derivable from the application as filed, either explicitly or implicitly (cf. "Case Law of the Boards of Appeal", 6th edition, III.A.7.1, page 347). In the board's view, this is not so in the present case.

10. Therefore, the Main Request is considered not to fulfil the requirements of Article 123(2) EPC.

Admissibility of Auxiliary Requests A and B

11. The sole claim of Auxiliary Request A is identical to claim 1 of Auxiliary Request 8 filed by appellant I on 9 February 2010 in reply to the grounds of appeal of appellants II and III, which was itself identical to claim 1 of Auxiliary Request 6 filed on 12 July 2006 in preparation of oral proceedings before the opposition division. The amendment introduced into claim 1(b) of Auxiliary Request A corresponds to subject-matter of granted claim 3 which read as follows:

"3. A method of claim 1 or 2, wherein for each gene, said array comprises at least 10 different nucleic acid probes complementary to subsequences of that gene, preferably no more than 20 different nucleic acid probes complementary to subsequences of that gene."

(in italics by the board the subject-matter introduced into claim 1(b) of Auxiliary Request A, cf. Section XII, supra).

12. Although Auxiliary Request A was filed at the oral proceedings before the board, i.e. at a very late stage of the appeal proceedings, its subject-matter was, as such, in the proceedings from a very early stage. This subject-matter, being a straight combination of granted claims 1 and 3, is not complex and, since Auxiliary Request A contains a single claim, it does not increase the complexity of the case. The subject-matter of Auxiliary Request A intends to overcome an objection originally raised against the claims as granted and decided to be relevant by the opposition division in its interlocutory decision.

13. Although the subject-matter of Auxiliary Request A was present in an Auxiliary Request (claim 1 of Auxiliary Request 6 filed on 4 June 2012) that was previously withdrawn at the oral proceedings before the board, this withdrawn Auxiliary Request, which consisted of 42 claims, cannot be equated with present Auxiliary Request A, as it raised other additional objections that increased the complexity of the case and which do not apply anymore to the subject-matter of Auxiliary Request A.

14. Thus, the board, in the exercise of its discretion under Article 13(1) RPBA (cf. point 1 supra), decides to admit Auxiliary Request A into the appeal proceedings.

15. The sole claim of Auxiliary Request B is identical to claim 1 of Auxiliary Requests 15 and 24, filed by appellant I on 4 June 2012 in reply to the board's communication pursuant to Article 15(1) RPBA, which was a combination of features present in claims 1 of Auxiliary Request 4 (subject-matter of granted claims 8 and 9 introduced into claim 1(b) and (d)) and Auxiliary Request 8 (subject-matter of granted claim 2 introduced into claim 1(b)), both filed on 9 February 2010 in reply to the grounds of appeal of appellants II and III. Auxiliary Requests 4 and 8 of 9 February 2010 were originally filed on 12 July 2006, as Auxiliary Requests 2 and 6 in preparation of the oral proceedings before the opposition division.

16. Although the subject-matter of Auxiliary Request B results from a combination of Auxiliary Requests that were in the proceedings from an early stage, this particular combination was introduced, as such, into the appeal proceedings only one month before the oral proceedings before the board. However, Auxiliary Requests 15 and 24, whose claim 1 was identical to claim 1 of Auxiliary Request B, were filed together with a large number of other Auxiliary Requests (AR11 to AR26) that contained numerous combinations based on previously filed requests (MR, AR1 to AR10) (cf. Section X supra). Some of these Auxiliary Requests and these combinations were not hierarchically arranged (convergent) but only mere alternatives that intended to address the same or closely related objections. The subject-matter of Auxiliary Request B was thus filed, as such, in a set of requests that followed a so-called "pick and mix" approach (cf. T 1685/07 of 4 August 2010, T 745/03 and T 221/06, supra).

17. Auxiliary Request B contains a single claim and thus, does not appear, in principle, to increase the complexity of the case. However, in view of the above mentioned circumstances, namely the fact that Auxiliary Request B was filed at a late stage of the appeal proceedings and that its subject-matter was present, for the first time, in Auxiliary Requests filed only one month before the oral proceedings in a "pick and mix" approach, the admission of Auxiliary Request B is considered not to contribute to the economy of the present appeal proceedings.

18. Thus, the board, in the exercise of its discretion under Article 13(1) RPBA (cf. point 1 supra), decides not to admit Auxiliary Request B into the appeal proceedings.

Auxiliary Request A

Article 100(c) EPC; Article 123(2) EPC

19. Whereas the amendment introduced into claim 1(b) of Auxiliary Request A reads "and, for each gene, said array comprising at least 10 different nucleic acid probes complementary to subsequences of that gene" (in bold by the board; cf. Section XII supra), the passages on page 5, lines 17-18 and page 6, lines 9-11 of the application as filed indicated by appellant I as a basis for this amendment read "at least 10 different oligonucleotide probes for each gene" and "(t)he array includes test probes which are oligonucleotide probes" (in bold by the board).

20. Whereas a probe is defined on page 11, lines 25-26 of the application as filed as being "an oligonucleotide capable of binding to a target nucleic acid of complementary sequence" (in bold by the board), an oligonucleotide is defined on page 11, lines 23-24 as being "a single-stranded nucleic acid ranging in length from 2 to about 500 bases" (in bold by the board). However, the definition of "nucleic acid" found on page 11, lines 19-22 of the application as filed is broader than that defining an oligonucleotide. In the board's view, the nature and properties of a nucleic acid probe do not need to be, always and necessarily, the same as these of an oligonucleotide probe. It cannot be directly and unambiguously inferred from all these definitions that all probes are nucleic acid probes and that both terms, oligonucleotide and nucleic acid, are to be used interchangeably in the application as filed - as argued by appellant I (cf. Section XIV supra).

21. Although references to "nucleic acid probes" are found in the application as filed, they cannot provide a formal basis for the amendment introduced into claim 1(b) of Auxiliary request A. There is a reference on page 18, lines 6-10 to a high density array of "nucleic acid probes" to be used in a method of monitoring the expression levels of one or more genes. However, this method is described in general terms with no reference to the specific number of probes and with none of the features present in claim 1, in particular those in part (b) of this claim. Other references to "nucleic acid probes" are also of general character and it is arguable whether they directly and unambiguously relate to the method of claim 1, such as those found on page 10, lines 21-30, claims 65 and 73 (computer-implemented method) and page 45, lines 5-10 (combination of selection methods) of the application as filed. Although several references to "nucleic acid probes" are also found on page 57, including one in context with some of the features cited in claim 1(b), they all relate to a computer-implemented method and none of them refers to the specific number of 10 different probes indicated in claim 1(b) of Auxiliary Request A.

22. It is questionable whether all these references, taken as a whole, might lead a skilled reader to understand that the terms oligonucleotide and nucleic acid are to be used interchangeably in the application as filed. In the board's view, such interpretation is not directly derivable from these references and implies, to say the least, a certain degree of ambiguity. It cannot thus be a direct and unambiguous formal basis for the amendment introduced into claim 1(b) of Auxiliary Request A.

23. Therefore, Auxiliary Request A is considered not to fulfil the requirements of Article 123(2) EPC.

Order

ORDER

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The decision under appeal is set aside.

2. The patent is revoked.

Footer - Service & support
  • Service & support
    • FAQ
    • Contact us
    • Subscription centre
    • Official holidays
    • Publications
    • Procedural communications
    • Ordering
    • Glossary
Footer - More links
  • Jobs & careers
  • Press centre
  • Single Access Portal
  • Procurement
  • Boards of Appeal
SoMe facebook 0
European Patent Office
EPO Jobs
SoMe instagram
EuropeanPatentOffice
SoMe linkedIn
European Patent Office
EPO Jobs
EPO Procurement
SoMe twitter
EPOorg
EPOjobs
SoMe youtube
TheEPO
Footer
  • Legal notice
  • Terms of use
  • Data protection and privacy
  • Accessibility