T 1354/13 30-04-2014

1. Applicable version of Rule 137 EPC

Rule 137 EPC was amended by Decision of the Administrative Council of 25 March 2009 (OJ EPO 2009, 299). According to Article 2 of that decision, the amended rule applies to European patent applications for which the European search report or the supplementary European search report was drawn up on or after 1 April 2010. In the present case, the search report was drawn up on 8 October 2001, and therefore the amended rule does not apply.

Rule 137(4) EPC in the applicable version is identical to the first sentence of Rule 137(5) EPC to which the decision under appeal referred and reads: "Amended claims may not relate to unsearched subject-matter which does not combine with the originally claimed invention or group of inventions to form a single general inventive concept." In the following, the board will refer to Rule 137 EPC in the applicable version.

2. Admissibility of the appeal

2.1 Article 108, third sentence, EPC provides that within four months of notification of the decision, "a statement setting out the grounds of appeal shall be filed in accordance with the Implementing Regulations." According to Rule 99(2) EPC, in the statement of grounds of appeal "the appellant shall indicate the reasons for setting aside the decision impugned, or the extent to which it is to be amended, and the facts and evidence on which the appeal is based." An appeal which does not comply with these requirements shall be rejected as inadmissible (Rule 101(1) EPC).

2.2 In the present case, the applicant had requested the grant of a patent on the basis of amended sets of claims to whose admission to the proceedings the examining division had not given its consent under Rule 137 EPC. The application was therefore refused under Article 97(2) EPC for lack of claims submitted by the applicant on which a decision can be based (Article 113(2) EPC).

The board notes that the examining division, pursuant to Article 113(2) EPC 1973, was bound to decide on a text submitted to it, or agreed by the applicant. Thus the decision under appeal was based on the ground that there was no set of claims upon which the examining division could decide. Implicitly this meant that a patent could not be granted (Article 97(1) EPC in conjunction with Article 78(1)(c) EPC 1973) and that the application consequently had to be refused (Article 97(2) EPC).

2.3 In the statement of grounds of appeal the appellant asserted that the examining division had exercised its discretion in deciding whether or not to admit the claims of the main request and the auxiliary request in violation of the appellant's right to be heard (Article 113(1) EPC). With respect to the auxiliary request the appellant submitted in addition that the examining division, in exercising its discretion, had also infringed Rule 137(3) EPC (see point XII above). Hence, the appellant provided arguments why non-admission of its requests had allegedly resulted in a decision tainted by substantial procedural violations, which should therefore be set aside. If found to be justified, the contested procedural decisions of the examining division would deprive the decision of its legal basis. It follows that there is a causal link between the alleged procedural violations and the decision to refuse the application, which made it necessary to appeal the decision.

2.4 The board concludes that the requirements of Rule 99(2) EPC are fulfilled. Since the appeal also complies with the further requirements of Rule 101 EPC, it is admissible.

3. The decision under appeal

The appellant chose not to maintain the requests underlying the decision under appeal. Instead, it submitted an amended set of claims and requested that a patent be granted on the basis of these claims.

Pursuant to Article 113(2) EPC 1973 the European Patent Office shall consider and decide upon the European patent application only in the text submitted to it, or agreed, by the applicant. Hence, the patentability of the claims underlying the decision under appeal do not form a subject of the appeal proceedings. As a consequence, the board only needs to review the examining division's decision in respect of the alleged substantial procedural violations having led to this decision.

4. Admissibility of the main and auxiliary requests

4.1 With its statement of grounds of appeal the appellant seeks grant of a patent on the basis of the main request, i.e. new claims filed with the statement of grounds, and a description to be adapted thereto. In the alternative, the appellant requested that the case be remitted for further prosecution based on these claims.

4.2 According to Article 12(4) RPBA the board may hold inadmissible facts, evidence or requests which could have been presented or were not admitted in the first-instance proceedings.

4.3 New claim 1 contains all the features of claim 1 as originally filed. The amendments to claim 1 (and similarly also those to the further independent claim 4) relate to a first metadata package and an event trigger. The claimed subject-matter resulting from the incorporation of these additional features combines the originally claimed invention with additional features narrowing down the original concept. In particular, the specification of an event trigger is explicitly included in the concept set out in the description from page 2, fourth paragraph, to page 3, first paragraph. It may be summarised as managing the transfer of metadata so as to allow maximum data size that may be transferred for each trigger event. A search "on the basis of the claims, with due regard to the description and any drawings" (see Article 92(1) EPC 1973) may thus be assumed to have covered this subject-matter.

4.4 Hence, the amended claims can be considered a bona fide reaction of the appellant to overcome the objections that were raised in the oral proceedings before the examining division. In view of the circumstances of the present case (see points VI to VIII) it is apparent that the failure to file appropriate alternative requests before the department of first instance resulted from an incorrect understanding of the procedure rather than from any tactical abuse.

4.5 The new set of claims also complies with Rule 137(4) EPC in the applicable version (see above, point 1), on which basis the examining division had declined to admit the main request in the version before it (see decision under appeal, points 12.1, 12.2 and 12.5, referring to corresponding Rule 137(5)). The board agrees with the view taken in decision T 2334/11 (see Reasons 2.2.2) that a presumed lack of novelty of the subject-matter of original claim 1 does not necessarily entail the consequence of a lack of a single general inventive concept in the sense of Rule 137(4) EPC. Instead, if an originally filed claim is amended by adding a feature to it, it has to be examined whether the added feature forms part of a single general inventive concept (in the meaning of one invention only; see e.g. G 1/89, OJ EPO 1991, 155, point 4) as it can be understood from the application as originally filed.

In the present case and as set out above (see point 4.3), the inventive concept can be perceived as managing the transfer of metadata so as to allow maximum data size that may be transferred for each trigger event. As a result, the additional features specifying a first metadata package and an event trigger narrow down the original inventive concept and therefore the amended claims relate to subject-matter which combines with the originally claimed invention to form a single general inventive concept.

4.6 As a result the board decides to admit the amended claims of the main and auxiliary requests.

5. Remittal

5.1 The subject-matter of the amended claims including the features that were taken from the description has not yet been examined by the department of first instance with respect to the substantive requirements of the EPC. Hence, the board considers it inappropriate at the present stage of the proceedings to carry out examination of the amended claims itself. As a consequence it cannot accede to the appellant's request to grant a patent on the basis of the claims of the main request submitted with the statement of grounds.

5.2 Instead, the board follows the appellant's alternative request and exercises its discretion under Article 111(1) EPC 1973 in remitting the case to the examining division for further prosecution on the basis of the claims of the main request submitted with the statement of grounds of appeal.

6. Substantial procedural violations

6.1 With respect to the request for reimbursement of the appeal fee it is Rule 67 EPC 1973 that applies to the present case and which corresponds to Rule 103(1)(a) EPC (see J 10/07 (OJ EPO 2008, 567), point 7, and T 630/08, point 1).

6.2 According to Rule 67, first sentence, EPC 1973 the reimbursement of appeal fees shall be ordered in the event of interlocutory revision or where the board of appeal deems an appeal to be allowable, if such reimbursement is equitable by reason of a substantial procedural violation.

6.3 The appellant argued that its right to be heard had been infringed for essentially two reasons:

a) The applicant was only informed during the oral proceedings about the objection under Rule 137(4) EPC (referred to as Rule 137(5) EPC), which did not leave sufficient time to prepare comments. Only twenty minutes were allowed for the applicant to prepare a new set of claims despite its request to continue the proceedings in writing.

b) The examining division did not admit the auxiliary request submitted during oral proceedings, and the applicant was not allowed sufficient time to prepare comments.

6.4 Article 123 EPC governs the right to amend an application, with Rule 137 EPC being an implementing rule to Article 123(1) EPC.

Regardless of whether the examining division's decision to not admit the claims according to the appellant's requests was correct, the board considers that an applicant who presents extensively revised claims at a late stage of the proceedings has to be prepared for the possibility that the admissibility of these claims will be considered in accordance with Article 123 and Rule 137 EPC. In the present case the claims were extensively revised in preparation for the oral proceedings, with the revision including the deletion of features. Furthermore, the appellant did not contest that the claims submitted on 29 October 2012 shifted the focus of the invention from the calculation of transfer intervals to the signalling of when to present data (see minutes of oral proceedings, point 2, third paragraph, and statement of grounds, page 2, penultimate paragraph). Hence, the applicant should have expected an examination of the amended claims for compliance with Article 123 and Rule 137 EPC. There was no obligation to inform the applicant in the telephone consultation of 21 November 2012 about a possible corresponding objection, and the examining division was free to raise such an objection in the oral proceedings and to decide not to admit the amended claims. Hence, in the present case it is not relevant whether or not the appellant was actually informed prior to the oral proceedings about a possible objection under Rule 137 EPC (see points VI and VIII above). Furthermore, against the backdrop of Rule 137(3) EPC subjecting admission of further amendments to the examining division's consent, the board does not see special circumstances which would have required the examining division to provide more than twenty minutes for preparing a new set of claims during the oral proceedings or to continue the proceedings in writing.

6.5 With respect to point (b) the board concludes from the minutes of the oral proceedings (see point 3, last two paragraphs starting with "The professional representative replied ...") and from the Reasons of the decision under appeal (see point 13.2) that the appellant's representative was given an opportunity to present comments and that he actually availed himself of this opportunity. It follows that the right to be heard was not infringed as regards the auxiliary request.

6.6 For the reasons set out above relating to Rule 137(3) EPC, which gives an examining division the power to refuse its consent to further amendments, the appellant's argument that the filing of the request was not late compared to the delay in the Office's communications is not relevant to the present decision.

6.7 Hence, the board cannot see that the proceedings before the department of first instance were tainted by a substantial procedural violation. As a consequence, the requirements of Rule 67, first sentence, EPC 1973 for reimbursement of the appeal fee are not met in the present case.