T 0548/11 30-11-2012

I. The appeal by the patentee is against the decision of the opposition division revoking the contested patent EP-B-1 245 407.

II. During the opposition proceedings, the opponent raised the grounds for opposition according to Articles 100(a) (lack of novelty and lack of inventive step) and 100(b) EPC 1973.

With respect to the patentee's main request, the opposition division held that independent claim 1 lacked novelty.

Regarding the first auxiliary request, the opposition division decided that the amendments carried out during the opposition proceedings rendered independent claim 1 unclear, contrary to the provisions of Article 84 EPC 1973.

As regards the second auxiliary request, the opposition division concluded that the subject-matter of claim 1 extended beyond the content of the patent application as filed, thereby violating the requirements of Article 123(2) EPC.

In view of the above, the opposition division decided to revoke the contested patent.

III. Oral proceedings were held before the board of appeal on 30 November 2012.

IV. The appellant (patentee) requested that the decision under appeal be set aside and that the patent be granted on the basis of claims 1 to 4 (main request) filed with letter dated 27 June 2007, or in the alternative on the basis of claims 1 to 4 (auxiliary requests 1 or 2) filed as second and third auxiliary requests with letter dated 11 November 2010 or on the basis of claims 1 to 4 (auxiliary request 3) filed with letter dated 31 October 2012.

The respondent (opponent) requested that the appeal be dismissed.

V. The documents referred to in the appeal proceedings included the following:

D1: US-A-6 135 503;

D5: US-A-4 032 691;

D6: WO-A-99/54148;

D8: US-A-5 618 630;

Dl3: Excerpt from Wikipedia on polyethylene.

VI. Independent claim 1 of the main request reads as follows:

"1. A layer-structured and flexible data sheet (2) of a passport (1) comprising:

a laser inscription layer (4) made of polycarbonate, on which at least some of the data of the data sheet can be printed utilizing laser inscription technique, and

a tail part for attaching said data sheet (2) to the passport at a fold of the passport,

characterized in that

a flexible back layer (5) that endures bending and extends to the tail part of the data sheet (2) is attached to the laser inscription layer (4) by means of a laminate layer (6), and

the laser inscription layer (4) does not extend to the tail part of the data sheet."

Independent claim 1 according to auxiliary request 1 differs from claim 1 of the main request in that the following feature was amended:

"a flexible back layer (5) of a material that is flexible, wear-resistant and [deleted: that] endures bending and extends to the tail part of the data sheet (2) is attached to the laser inscription layer (4) of a material whose bending endurance is poor by means of a laminate layer (6)"

Independent claim 1 according to auxiliary request 2 differs from claim 1 of the main request in that the following feature was added:

"the tail part has a layer structure in which the material of the flexible back layer (5) is attached to the laminate layer (6)"

Independent claim 1 according to auxiliary request 3 is distinguished from claim 1 of the main request in that the following feature was amended:

"a flexible back layer (5) that endures bending, [deleted: and] extends to the tail part of the data sheet (2) and is made of HDPE is attached to the laser inscription layer (4) by means of a laminate layer (6)"

Auxiliary request 3 comprises a further independent claim 4, which differs from claim 1 of the main request by the following amendment:

"a flexible back layer (5) that endures bending, [deleted: and] extends to the tail part of the data sheet (2) is attached to the laser inscription layer (4) by means of a laminate layer (6) consisting of filled foamed polyethylene ..."

VII. The appellant's arguments, in writing and during the oral proceedings, can be summarised as follows:

The subject-matter of claim 1 of the main request was novel since the finished arrangement of document D1 did not comprise a distinctive laminate layer between the flexible back layer and the laser inscription layer. Although the flexible back layer in document D1 originally consisted of two separate layers 10 and 11, preferably of the same material, they coalesced into one single layer 7 during the manufacturing process. Moreover, the resulting layer 7 needed to have a certain thickness for providing the relief structure 13. Therefore, the resulting data sheet had a single flexible back layer 7 and a laser inscription layer 9, but no laminate layer between them, thereby rendering the subject-matter claimed novel over the disclosure of document D1.

Independent claim 1 according to auxiliary request 1 was limited further by specifying that the flexible back layer was of a flexible and wear-resistant material, while polycarbonate, the material of the laser inscription layer, had a poor bending endurance. In contrast, the corresponding layers 10 and 11 of prior art document D1 were of the same material (see document D1, column 2, lines 29 to 32).

Turning to auxiliary request 2, independent claim 1 contained the additional feature of the tail part having a layer structure in which the material of the flexible back layer was attached to the laminate layer, which was the opposite of the teaching of document D1, column 1, lines 46 to 52, thereby further distinguishing the claim from the prior art.

Auxiliary request 3 was filed in reaction to the provisional opinion of the board. Since the additional features of the claims were taken from dependent claims present in all previous requests filed during opposition and appeal proceedings it should be admitted into the proceedings. The requirements of Article 123(2) EPC were met, since the basis for the amendments could be found in paragraph [0013] of the description and the claims as originally filed. Moreover, the subject-matter of claims 1 and 4 of auxiliary request 3 was clearly novel since document D1 did not disclose HDPE as the material of the flexible back layer or filled foamed polyethylene as the laminating layer. Furthermore, the claimed material combinations on the basis of (filled foamed) polyethylene and polycarbonate were neither disclosed in any prior art document on file, nor were they obvious to a person skilled in the art being aware of the incompatibility of the materials in question and the reliable bonding of the layers required for security documents. Consequently, the subject-matter of independent claims 1 and 4 was based on an inventive step.

VIII. The respondent's arguments, in writing and during the oral proceedings, were essentially as follows:

The subject-matter of claim 1 of the main request was not novel over document D1 since the foils 10 and 11 could still be identified as individual sub-layers of layer 7 even after having coalesced into a unit at their boundary surface. The sub-layers 10 and 11 of document D1 had different properties due to the different content of additives. Moreover, the sub-layers did not stick together in the tail area. Hence, they could be recognised as distinctive layers. Consequently, the layer structure of the data sheet of document D1 could be seen as comprising a laminate layer between a flexible back layer and a laser inscription layer, thereby fully anticipating the subject-matter of claim 1 of the main request.

Claim 1 according to auxiliary request 1 contained the additional feature of the flexible back layer being of a flexible and wear-resistant material and that the polycarbonate of the laser inscription layer had a poor bending endurance. It was important to note that the layers were specified independently of each other, the claim did thus not define the mechanical properties of the back layer relative to those of polycarbonate, which was used for the laser inscription layer. In prior art document D1 polycarbonate was already disclosed as one of the preferred materials, both for the laser inscription layer and for the back layer. The subject-matter of claim 1 of auxiliary request 1 was not novel over this teaching, since polycarbonate foils, depending on their thickness, always had some degree of flexibility, wear resistance and bending endurance. Document D1 (see column 1, lines 54 to 59) also mentioned that the back layer had to be flexible.

Furthermore, the subject-matter of claim 1 of auxiliary request 2 was not novel since document D1 disclosed in column 2, lines 34 to 40 the possibility of the cover foils being connected in the area of the seam.

Late-filed auxiliary request 3 should not be admitted into the proceedings since the amended claims were based on original claims 1, 3 and 4 as well as on paragraphs [0013] to [0016] of the description. Thus, the present combination of features went beyond what was claimed, both at filing and at the grant stage, making an additional search necessary, for which, however, the request was filed too late. Moreover, the description of the application as filed disclosed in paragraphs [0012] to [0016] the tail part design together with the specific arrangement of a laser inscription layer made of polycarbonate, a laminating layer of filled foamed polyethylene and a flexible back layer of high density polyethylene. The amended independent claims generalised this teaching by claiming the tail part design in combination with the layer arrangement, for which, however, the materials of only two of the three layers were specified in the independent claims, contrary to the provisions of Article 123(2) EPC. Moreover, independent claims 1 and 4 were not in line with the requirement of unity of invention. Finally, the independent claims were novel but not based on an inventive step when starting from document D1. The only differing feature of independent claim 1 was the flexible layer being made of HDPE, a material generally known for its flexibility and wear resistance, as shown in document D13 and suggested for use in security documents in prior art documents D6 (see middle of page 5) or D8 (see column 3, lines 42 to 46). The distinguishing element of independent claim 4 was the selection of filled foamed polyethylene for the laminating layer, which was an arbitrary choice rendered obvious by the teaching of document D5, which disclosed a laminating layer made of porous material.