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 Inventors 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
      • Technologies
      • 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
    • Go back
    • New to patents
  • New to patents
    • Go back
    • Your business and patents
    • Why do we have patents?
    • What's your big idea?
    • Are you ready?
    • What to expect
    • How to apply for a patent
    • Is it patentable?
    • Are you first?
    • 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
      • Technologies
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Innovation against cancer
        • Assistive robotics
        • Space technologies
      • Innovation actors
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Startups and SMEs
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Publications
        • Research universities and public research organisations
      • 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 1931/09 (User Interface/BLACKBERRY) 23-01-2014
Facebook X Linkedin Email

T 1931/09 (User Interface/BLACKBERRY) 23-01-2014

European Case Law Identifier
ECLI:EP:BA:2014:T193109.20140123
Date of decision
23 January 2014
Case number
T 1931/09
Petition for review of
-
Application number
04104465.2
IPC class
G06F 3/033
Language of proceedings
EN
Distribution
NO DISTRIBUTION (D)

Download and more information:

Decision in EN 388.93 KB
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the European Patent Register
Bibliographic information is available in:
EN
Versions
Unpublished
Application title

User interface having viewing area with non-transparent and semi-transparent regions

Applicant name
BlackBerry Limited
Opponent name
-
Board
3.5.05
Headnote
-
Relevant legal provisions
Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 12(4)
Keywords
Admissibility of main and auxiliary requests (no)
Catchword
-
Cited decisions
T 0528/93
T 0390/07
Citing decisions
-

I. The present appeal is against the decision of the examining division to refuse the European patent application no. 04 104 465.2, publication no. EP 1 637 979. The decision was announced during oral proceedings held on 19 February 2009 with the written reasons being dispatched on 14 May 2009.

II. During proceedings before the department of first instance the then applicant and present appellant amended the application after receipt of the European Search Report by submitting a new claim set with the letter of 16 June 2005.

III. Claim 1 of the claim set filed with the letter of 16 June 2005 reads as follows:

"A method for displaying, in a graphical user interface having overlapping viewing areas, a foreground viewing area (64) having foreground viewing area content (70) over a background viewing area (62) having background viewing area content (74), the method comprising:

displaying the foreground viewing area (64) with a non-transparent region (68) that obscures any part of the background viewing area (62) overlapped thereby and a semi-transparent region (66) through which background viewing area content (74) overlapped thereby can be at least partially viewed;

updating the user interface (60C) to display changes to the foreground viewing area (64) by repainting only the non-transparent region (68) and not repainting the background viewing area (62) and the semi-transparent region (66)."

IV. In an official communication dated 7 May 2007, the examining division raised objections against the claim set filed with the letter of 16 June 2005 and submitted inter alia that the subject-matter of claim 1 lacked an inventive step in the light of the following prior art documents:

D3: US 5 617 114;

D4: US 6 750 858.

According to inventive step assessment of the examining division, said claim was distinguished over D3 by the concluding feature of updating the user interface to display changes to the foreground viewing area by repainting only the non-transparent region and not repainting the background viewing area and the semi-transparent region. The problem addressed by this distinguishing feature was formulated as how to decrease the computation time for processing the display information and the claimed solution was said to be obvious in the light of D4.

V. With a letter dated 10 September 2007 in response to the objections raised in the official communication of 7 May 2007, the applicant made no identifiable attempt to rebut the above-mentioned inventive step objection raised by the examining division but instead amended claim 1 to remove the step of updating the user interface.

VI. The decision under appeal was based on a main request and a first auxiliary request, both of which were filed in electronic form on 29 October 2008. The main request was not admitted to the proceedings pursuant to Rule 137(3) EPC due to allegedly failing to overcome a previously raised objection concerning lack of compliance with Article 123(2) EPC. The auxiliary request was refused under Article 123(2) EPC. In an obiter dictum to the decision it was stated that the matter for which protection was sought in accordance with the claims of the main request lacked an inventive step over D3 (US 5 617 114 B) and the matter for which protection was sought in accordance with the claims of the auxiliary request lacked novelty over D2 (EP 0 344 082 A2).

VII. Claim 1 of the auxiliary request filed in electronic form on 29 October 2008 reads as follows:

"A method for displaying, in a graphical user interface having overlapping viewing areas, a foreground viewing area (64) having foreground viewing area content (70) over a background viewing area (62) having background viewing area content (74), the method comprising the steps of:

a) displaying the foreground viewing area (64) with an interior region (68) and a border region (66) surrounding the interior region (68), said step of displaying the foreground viewing area (64) comprising determining a type of transparency level of the foreground viewing area (64) as one of:

none where the interior region (68) and the border region (66) of the foreground viewing area (64) completely obscure from view content (74) in an area of the background viewing area (62) that is overlaid by the foreground viewing area (64);

border and interior where the interior region (68) and the border region (66) of the foreground viewing area (64) have a degree of transparency such that content (74) from the background viewing area (62) in an area of said background viewing area (62) that is overlaid by said interior and border regions (68, 66) can be partially seen through said interior and border regions (68, 66); or

border only where the interior region (68) of the foreground viewing area (64) completely obscures from view content (74) in an area of the background viewing area (62) that is overlaid by said interior region (66) and the border region (66) has a degree of transparency such that content (74) from the background viewing area (62) in an area of said background viewing area (62) that is overlaid by said border region (66) can be partially seen through the said border region (66); and

b) displaying the background viewing area content (74) lying beyond the foreground viewing area."

VIII. Notice of appeal was received at the EPO on 13 July 2009 with the appropriate fee being paid on the same date. A written statement setting out the grounds of appeal was received at the EPO on 11 September 2009. With the statement setting out the grounds of appeal, the appellant filed an amended set of 6 claims as a new main request.

IX. Claim 1 of the request filed with the written statement of grounds reads as follows:

"A method for displaying, in a graphical user interface having overlapping viewing areas, a foreground viewing area (64) having foreground viewing area content (70) over a background viewing area (62) having background viewing area content (74), the method comprising the steps of:

a) displaying the foreground viewing area (64) with an interior region (68) and a border region (66) surrounding the interior region (68), said step of displaying the foreground viewing area (64) comprising determining a type of transparency level of the foreground viewing area (64) as one of:

none where the interior region (68) and the border region (66) of the foreground viewing area (64) completely obscure from view content (74) in an area of the background viewing area (62) that is overlaid by the foreground viewing area (64);

border and interior where the interior region (68) and the border region (66) of the foreground viewing area (64) have a degree of transparency such that content (74) from the background viewing area (62) in an area of said background viewing area (62) that is overlaid by said interior and border regions (68, 66) can be partially seen through said interior and border regions (68, 66); or

border only where the interior region (68) of the foreground viewing area (64) completely obscures from view content (74) in an area of the background viewing area (62) that is overlaid by said interior region (66) and the border region (66) has a degree of transparency such that content (74) from the background viewing area (62) in an area of said background viewing area (62) that is overlaid by said border region (66) can be partially seen through the said border region (66); and

b) updating the user interface to display changes to the foreground viewing area (64) by copying and redisplaying the border region (66) and portions of the background viewing area (62) that are not overlapped by the foreground viewing area (64)."

X. In a communication accompanying a summons to oral proceedings to be held on 23 January 2014, the board gave its preliminary opinion concerning the appeal and, inter alia, made the following observations:

(i) With respect to claim 1 of the claim set filed with the written statement setting out the grounds of appeal, it was noted that said claim appeared to be an attempt to re-introduce subject-matter which had been introduced during proceedings before the department of first instance but had been subsequently withdrawn and consequently not pursued to a final decision in the context of said proceedings.

(ii) Referring to the provisions of Rule 12(4) RPBA, the board expressed reservations about the admissibility of the aforementioned claim set, in particular because the claim set in its present form did not appear to have been drafted in a manner which complied with the requirements of Articles 84 and 123(2) EPC.

XI. With a letter of reply dated 16 December 2013, the appellant filed an auxiliary request comprising 6 claims and entitled "Second Auxiliary Request".

XII. Claim 1 of the auxiliary request filed with the letter of 16 December 2013 reads as follows:

"A method for displaying, in a graphical user interface having overlapping viewing areas, a foreground viewing area (64) having foreground viewing area content (70) over a background viewing area (62) having background viewing area content (74), the method comprising the steps of:

a) displaying the foreground viewing area (64) with an interior region (68) and a border region (66) surrounding the interior region (68), said step of displaying the foreground viewing area (64) comprising determining a type of transparency level of the foreground viewing area (64) as one of:

none where the interior region (68) and the border region (66) of the foreground viewing area (64) completely obscure from view content (74) in an area of the background viewing area (62) that is overlaid by the foreground viewing area (64);

border and interior where the interior region (68) and the border region (66) of the foreground viewing area (64) have a degree of transparency such that content (74) from the background viewing area (62) in an area of said background viewing area (62) that is overlaid by said interior and border regions (68, 66) can be partially seen through said interior and border regions (68, 66); or

border only where the interior region (68) of the foreground viewing area (64) completely obscures from view content (74) in an area of the background viewing area (62) that is overlaid by said interior region (66) and the border region (66) has a degree of transparency such that content (74) from the background viewing area (62) in an area of said background viewing area (62) that is overlaid by said border region (66) can be partially seen through the said border region (66); and

b) for a border only type of transparency level, updating the user interface to display changes to the foreground viewing area (64) by copying and redisplaying the border region (66) and portions of the background viewing area (62) that are not overlapped by the foreground viewing area (64) and displaying the updated foreground viewing area (64) with an updated interior region (68) that obscures any part of the background viewing area (62) overlapped thereby."

XIII. Oral proceedings were held as scheduled on 24 January 2014. Nobody appeared on behalf of the appellant and the appellant's representative confirmed in a telephone conversation with the board's registrar during oral proceedings that he would not be attending the oral proceedings. The board decided to continue the proceedings in the absence of the appellant.

XIV. The requests submitted by the appellant during written proceedings are as follows:

(i) As a main request, the appellant requested that the decision under appeal be set aside and that the case be remitted to the examining division to consider novelty and inventive step on the basis of claims 1-6 as filed with the statement setting out the grounds of appeal dated 11 September 2009.

(ii) As a first auxiliary request, the appellant requested that the decision under appeal be set aside and that a patent be granted on the basis of claims 1-6 as filed with the statement setting out the grounds of appeal dated 11 September 2009.

(iii) As a second auxiliary request, the appellant requested that the decision under appeal be set aside and that the case be remitted to the examining division to consider novelty and inventive step on the basis of claims 1—6 filed as Second Auxiliary Request with letter dated 16 December 2013.

(iv) As a third auxiliary request, the appellant requested that the decision under appeal be set aside and that a patent be granted on the basis of claims 1—6 filed as Second Auxiliary Request with letter dated 16 December 2013.

XV. Insofar as they are relevant to the present decision, the written submissions made on behalf of the appellant during the present appeal proceedings, may be summarised as follows:

(i) With respect to the claim set filed with the statement setting out the grounds of appeal, the appellant made submissions to the effect that said claim set was based on the previously filed auxiliary request and that claim 1 had been amended to specify updating the user interface to display changes to the foreground viewing area by copying and redisplaying the border region and portions of the background viewing area that are not overlapped by the foreground viewing area.

(ii) According to the appellant, the effect of this difference was disclosed at length in the description as originally filed, e.g. at paragraphs 36 to 38, and it was beneficial to have to re-paint as little information as possible to reduce processing burden. It was further submitted that this distinction had not been appreciated fully in the official communication of 7 May 2007.

(iii) Concerning the board's reservations about the admissibility of this claim set, the appellant submitted that at the time that the appeal was filed, the case law of the Boards of Appeal indicated that such a main request should be admissible and that it was the appellant's reasonable expectation that the main request should be admissible. If there had been a move towards a stricter admissibility hurdle in the meantime, the appellant requested that the application should be remitted to the examining division for consideration of inventive step.

(iv) It was additionally submitted that the amendment to claim 1 of said claim set was an attempt to overcome the objections raised in the decision under appeal rather than a redirection of the claims that would constitute a fresh case. The feature added to said claim 1 was not unrelated to the feature removed from claim 1 of the refused auxiliary request as both were aimed at offering presentation modes that reduced the computer resources required to update them.

(v) With respect to the question of support for the amendments, it was submitted that original claim 4 and paragraph 38 of the originally filed description disclosed that if updating a foreground area, the blended portion of the border region and the non-overlapped portions of the background might be re-used.

(vi) With respect to the claim set filed with the letter of 16 December 2013, the appellant submitted that claim 1 thereof had been amended to include that the final updating step was for a border only type of transparency level. It was further submitted that the features of said claim were supported by the description and figures, specifically Fig. 6 and blocks 600, 601, 630, 632 and 634 as well as paragraph 38 of the description.

XVI. At the end of the oral proceedings the chair announced the board's decision.

1. The appeal is admissible. However, it is not allowable for the reasons which follow.

2. Non-attendance at oral proceedings

2.1 Article 15(3) RPBA stipulates that the board is not obliged to delay any step in the proceedings, including its decision, by reason only of the absence at the oral proceedings of any party duly summoned who may then be treated as relying only on its written case.

2.2 At the oral proceedings held as scheduled on 24 January 2014, nobody appeared on behalf of the appellant. The appellant's representative confirmed in a telephone conversation with the board's registrar during oral proceedings that he would not be attending the oral proceedings.

2.3 Having regard to the provisions of Article 15(3) RPBA, the board decided to continue the proceedings in the absence of the appellant who had been duly summoned. By not attending the proceedings the appellant effectively chose not to avail itself of the opportunity to present comments orally before the board but instead to rely on its written case as contained in statement setting out the grounds of appeal dated 11 September 2009 and the letter of 16 December 2013.

2.4 In the present case, the board was in a position to announce a decision at the conclusion of the oral proceedings as foreseen by Article 15(6) RPBA.

3. Article 12(4) RPBA

3.1 Pursuant to Article 12(4) RPBA an appeal board is empowered to hold inadmissible facts, evidence and requests which could have been presented in the first instance proceedings. The boards of appeal thus retain discretion, as a review instance, to refuse new material, including requests (claim sets) which ought to have been, but were not, submitted during first instance proceedings.

3.2 It follows from Article 12(4) RPBA that the admission of new requests in appeal proceedings, the purpose of which is mainly to review the decision of the department of first instance, is a matter for the board's discretion and not a right of any party. In particular, the board has the discretionary power not to admit new claims, even when filed together with the notice of appeal, in cases where such claims ought to have been presented in the first-instance proceedings.

3.3 The present Article 12(4) RPBA was originally enacted as Article 10a(4) of the amended Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal which were adopted under Rule 10(3) EPC on 28 October 2002 and entered into force on 1 May 2003 following approval by the Administrative Council of the EPO (cf. Decision CA/D 17/02 of Administrative Council of 12 December 2002).

3.4 The discretionary power under Article 12(4) RPBA has to be exercised appropriately which requires the appeal board to consider and weigh up the relevant factors having regard to the particular circumstances of each case.

Main and first auxiliary requests

4. The appellant's main and first auxiliary requests concern the claim set filed with the written statement setting out the grounds of appeal. In both cases, it is requested that the decision under appeal be set aside. According to the main request, the board is requested to remit the application to the department of first instance for further prosecution on the basis of said claim set. According to the first auxiliary request, the board is requested to grant a patent based on said claim set. For the reasons which follow, the board cannot allow either of the aforementioned requests.

5. Amendments to claim 1

5.1 The concluding feature of claim 1 of the auxiliary request on which the decision under appeal is based, i.e. the auxiliary request as filed on 29 October 2008 (cf. Facts and Submissions, item VII above), reads as follows:

"b) displaying the background viewing area content (74) lying beyond the foreground viewing area."

5.2 Claim 1 of the request filed with the written statement setting out the grounds of appeal has been amended by the replacement of the aforementioned feature as follows:

"b) updating the user interface to display changes to the foreground viewing area (64) by copying and redisplaying the border region (66) and portions of the background viewing area (62) that are not overlapped by the foreground viewing area (64)."

5.3 The board concurs with the appellant's submissions to the effect that the new feature of claim 1 filed with the statement of the grounds of appeal relates to the technical problem of reducing the processing burden by selectively re-painting particular sub-areas of the display. The board does not, however, accept the appellant's statement to the effect that the deleted feature of the earlier version of claim 1 referred to in 5.1 above, i.e. as filed on 29 October 2008, relates to the same technical problem (cf. Facts and Submissions, item XV(iv) above). The earlier version of claim 1 merely refers to "displaying the background viewing area content ... lying beyond the foreground viewing area" and contains no identifiable specification relating to the selective re-painting of particular sub-areas of the display.

5.4 It is apparent from the record of first instance proceedings that a version of claim 1 which did relate to substantially the same technical problem referred to in 5.3 above was filed with the letter of 16 June 2005 (cf. Facts and Submissions, item III above).

That version of claim 1 was evidently based on the "border only" transparency level embodiment of Fig. 6. Despite using somewhat different terminology and being restricted to specifying a single type of transparency level (corresponding to the aforementioned "border only" transparency level), the board judges that the version of claim 1 filed with the letter of 16 June 2005 relies on substantially the same technical effect and raises substantially the same issues with respect to inventive step as those which arise in relation to claim 1 of the claim set presently under consideration.

5.5 The foregoing interpretation of claim 1 as filed with the letter of 16 June 2005 is confirmed by the appellant's submissions referring to the official communication of 7 May 2007 (cf. Facts and Submissions, item XV(ii) above). The board does not, however, concur with the submissions of the appellant in this regard according to which it is alleged that the significance of the technical contribution provided by the selective re-painting of particular sub-areas of the display was "not appreciated fully" in the official communication of 7 May 2007. On the contrary, it would appear from said official communication that the examining division recognised the technical effect provided by the concluding feature of the claim, i.e. the step of updating the user interface, but took the position that this feature did not provide a non-obvious technical contribution in the light of D4 (cf. Facts and Submissions, item IV above).

5.6 The response of the then applicant and present appellant to the objections raised in this regard in the official communication of 7 May 2007 was to amend the aforementioned claim 1 by deleting the step of updating the user interface (cf. Facts and Submissions, item V above). There was no identifiable attempt on the part of the applicant to contest the inventive step objection raised against the claim and no further independent claim incorporating such a feature was pursued during the remainder of the proceedings before the department of first instance. The board interprets this behaviour as an effective abandonment of the corresponding subject-matter.

6. Admissibility

6.1 In the board's view, Article 12(4) RPBA (cf. 3. above) confers discretionary powers to hold inadmissible requests relating to subject-matter which was effectively abandoned during first instance proceedings, irrespective of the stage of the appeal proceedings at which such requests are filed. Thus, the board may validly exercise this discretionary power with respect to requests which have been filed with the written statement setting out the grounds of appeal.

6.2 If the board were to admit the claim set filed with the written statement setting out the grounds of appeal it would be compelled either (in accordance with the appellant's main request) to remit the case to the department of first instance for further prosecution or (in accordance with the appellant's first auxiliary request) to decide itself on the critical issues which arise in this regard.

6.3 In the present case, in particular insofar as the question of inventive step is concerned, a remittal to the department of first instance in accordance with the appellant's main request would effectively return the proceedings to the status prevailing at the time of the official communication dated 7 May 2007 and would oblige the examining division to revisit issues which had previously been raised in relation to claims seeking protection for substantially similar subject-matter but which had not, through a deliberate choice of the appellant, been pursued to a final decision. In the board's judgment, such a course of action would be contrary to the principle of procedural economy.

6.4 If, on the other hand, the board were to admit the claim set and proceed to decide upon its merits in accordance with the first auxiliary request, it would be effectively compelled give a first ruling on issues, in particular the question of inventive step, which had not been the subject of a decision during first instance proceedings. Such a course of action would run contrary to the primary purpose of appeal proceedings which is to review that which has been decided at first instance (cf. T 0390/07, point 2 of the Reasons).

6.5 In this regard, it is additionally noted that the board has reservations as to whether the version of claim 1 presently under consideration complies with the requirements of Articles 84 and 123(2) EPC.

6.6 Said claim is evidently based on the embodiment of the invention illustrated in Fig. 6 and disclosed in the corresponding passages of the description. It would appear from [0038] of the originally filed disclosure that the updating step specified in the concluding feature of the claim is only disclosed in connection with one of the transparency levels, i.e. the "border only" transparency level. However, the concluding feature of the claim lacks any such limitation and consequently the question of compliance with the requirements of Article 84 and Article 123(2) EPC arises in respect of this feature. As the appellant was not represented at the oral proceedings before the board, there was no possibility to discuss and resolve this question in the appellant's favour during said proceedings.

6.7 Thus, admission of the claim set in its present unamended form would effectively compel the board to proceed to a first ruling on the aforementioned question which has not been the subject of a decision during first instance proceedings due to the effective abandonment of the relevant subject-matter in the first instance proceedings (cf. 5.6 above). In the board's view, this is a further relevant factor to be taken into account against the admissibility of the claim set.

6.8 In view of the foregoing, the board decided to exercise its discretionary power under Article 12(4) RPBA not to admit the claim set filed with the written statement setting out the grounds of appeal. For this reason, neither the main request nor the first auxiliary request can be granted.

7. Observations re the appellant's submissions

7.1 The board refers to the appellant's submissions to the effect that the claim set should be considered admissible in view of the case law at the time that the appeal was filed (cf. Facts and Submissions, item XV(iii) above) and notes that it cannot concur with these submissions for the reasons which follow.

7.2 In the first place, it is noted that the appellant only refers in a general manner to "the case law of the Boards of Appeal" and does not cite any specific decisions to support its assertions in this regard.

7.3 As noted previously (cf. 3.3 above), the Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal have included provisions corresponding to those of the present Rule 12(4) RPBA since 1 May 2003, i.e. more than six years prior to the filing of the present appeal. The exercise of the discretionary power accorded under these provisions requires the appeal board to have regard to the particular circumstances of each case and to arrive at a decision on the basis of its own discretionary judgement.

7.4 The appellant has not succeeded in establishing that, at the time of filing the appeal, it was the common practice to exercise the aforementioned discretionary powers in the favour of appellants under directly comparable circumstances. Even if the existence of such a practice on the part of other boards had been established, it is doubtful as to whether this could be relied on to bind the present board with respect to exercising the aforementioned statutory powers on the basis of its own discretionary judgement and having due regard to the particular circumstances of the present case.

7.5 Moreover, the board notes that prior to the entry into force of the provisions of the Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal corresponding to the present Article 12(4) RPBA in May 2003, decisions had been taken not to admit requests filed at the commencement of appeal proceedings on the grounds that they contained substantially similar subject-matter to requests which had been withdrawn during first instance proceedings.

7.6 In this regard, reference is made to T 0528/93 (cf. Headnote; Reasons, point 1). The approach taken in that decision was confirmed and followed in the later decision T 0390/07 (cf. Headnote 1; Reasons, points 1 to 3). The board is aware that the aforementioned decisions relate to inter partes proceedings but nevertheless considers that the considerations on which they are based are also applicable mutatis mutandis to ex parte cases.

7.7 In view of the foregoing, the board judges that the appellant's arguments invoking a "reasonable expectation" that the claim set should be admissible in view of the case law at the time that the appeal was filed must be rejected.

Second and third auxiliary requests

8. The appellant's second and third auxiliary requests concern the claim set filed with the letter of 16 December 2013. In both cases, it is requested that the decision under appeal be set aside. According to the second auxiliary request, the board is requested to remit the application to the department of first instance for further prosecution on the basis of said claim set. According to the third auxiliary request, the board is requested to grant a patent based on said claim set. For the reasons which follow, the board cannot allow either of the aforementioned requests.

9. Amendments to claim 1

9.1 Claim 1 as filed with the letter of 16 December 2013 is substantially identical to claim 1 filed with the written statement setting out the grounds of appeal and differs only in that it has been amended vis-à-vis its earlier filed counterpart to specify that the updating step applies only for a "border only" type of transparency level (cf. Facts and Submissions, item XV(vi) above).

10. Admissibility

10.1 In view of the fact that the later filed claim 1 raises substantially the same issues with respect to inventive step as its earlier filed counterpart, the objections detailed under 6.2 to 6.4 above apply mutatis mutandis with respect to the admissibility of the later filed claim set.

10.2 In this regard, it is additionally noted that the board has reservations as to whether the later-filed version of claim 1 complies with the requirements of Articles 84 and 123(2) EPC. Said claim is evidently based on the embodiment of the invention illustrated in Fig. 6 and disclosed in the corresponding passages of the description. It would appear from [0036] to [0038] of the originally filed disclosure that in addition to the updating step specified in the concluding feature of claim 1 in relation to the "border only" transparency level other types of updating procedures are executed with respect to the other types of transparency level. However, the claim omits any specification of the updating procedures to be executed in the case of the other specified types of transparency level and a question of compliance with the requirements of Article 84 and Article 123(2) EPC arises in respect of this omission. As the appellant was not represented at the oral proceedings before the board, there was no possibility to discuss and resolve this question in the appellant's favour during said oral proceedings.

10.3 Hence, admission of the claim set in its present unamended form would effectively compel the board to proceed to a first ruling on the aforementioned question which has not been the subject of a decision during first instance proceedings. In the board's view, this is a further relevant factor to be taken into account against the admissibility of the claim set.

10.4 In view of the foregoing, the board decides to exercise its discretionary power under Article 12(4) RPBA not to admit the claim set filed with the letter of 16 December 2013. For this reason, neither the second nor the third auxiliary request can be granted.

Conclusions

11. In the absence of an allowable request the appeal must be dismissed.

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is dismissed.

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