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
    EPO TIR study-PV-web-720 x 237

    Technology insight report on advances in photovoltaics

  • 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
      • 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
      • The 2025 event
    • 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
      • 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
          • Core activities
          • Stories and insights
  • 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 2024
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Executive summary
          • Driver 1 – People
          • Driver 2 – Technologies
          • Driver 3 – High-quality, timely products and services
          • Driver 4 – Partnerships
          • Driver 5 – Financial Sustainability
        • 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 2135/13 (Thermal cycling apparatus/LIFE TECHNOLOGIES) 14-12-2016
Facebook X Linkedin Email

T 2135/13 (Thermal cycling apparatus/LIFE TECHNOLOGIES) 14-12-2016

European Case Law Identifier
ECLI:EP:BA:2016:T213513.20161214
Date of decision
14 December 2016
Case number
T 2135/13
Petition for review of
-
Application number
04753774.1
IPC class
B01L 7/00
C12Q 1/68
Language of proceedings
EN
Distribution
NO DISTRIBUTION (D)

Download and more information:

Decision in EN 457.76 KB
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the European Patent Register
Bibliographic information is available in:
EN
Versions
Unpublished
Application title

THERMAL CYCLING APPARATUS FOR PROVIDING THERMAL UNIFORMITY

Applicant name
Life Technologies Corporation
Opponent name

Roche Diagnostics International AG

Hirsz, Christopher Stanislaw

Eppendorf AG

Board
3.3.05
Headnote
-
Relevant legal provisions
Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 12(4)
Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 13(1)
Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 13(3)
European Patent Convention Art 54(1)
European Patent Convention Art 54(2)
European Patent Convention Art 56
European Patent Convention Art 84
European Patent Convention Art 83
European Patent Convention Art 123(2)
European Patent Convention Art 123(3)
Keywords

Amendments - allowable (yes)

Claims - conciseness (yes)

Claims - clarity (yes)

Sufficiency of disclosure - (yes)

Novelty - (yes)

Inventive step - improvement not credible

Inventive step - non-obvious alternative

Substantial procedural violation - (no)

Catchword
-
Cited decisions
T 0087/08
T 0667/08
T 0028/11
T 0598/12
T 0809/12
T 2001/12
T 0801/13
Citing decisions
-

I. The present appeal lies from the decision of the opposition division to revoke European patent EP 1 628 771. The patent in suit concerns a thermal cycling apparatus for providing thermal uniformity.

II. The documents cited in the proceedings before the opposition division included the following:

E1: US 2002/0030044 A1

E2: US 6 337 435 B1

E37: DE 197 23 590 A1

E38: DE 200 10 663 U1

E47: Ebert et al., Influence of a Thermal

Diffusivity Plate on the Mount Temperature

Uniformity - an Experimental Study (submitted

by opponent 1 (respondent I) as D14b)

E48: Ebert et al., Study on Thermal Interface Materials between Peltier and Heat Sink: Thin TDP, Thick TDP or another TIM?

In addition, various items of evidence relating to the alleged public prior use of "Mastercycler Gradient", labelled E33a to E33f, were submitted with the notice of opposition of opponent 3 (respondent III), including

E33e: Technical drawing "Wärmeleitpad"

E33f: "Infratron Kool Pad, Graphite Pad CM20"

as documents D2e and D2f,

as well as various items of evidence relating to the alleged public prior use of "Cobas Amplicor", labelled E49a to E49t6, including

E49d: Technical drawing "Keramikplatte, Warmseite"

E49e: Technical drawing "Keramikplatte, Kaltseite"

E49j: Declaration by Mr Grüter.

III. The opposition division found that the grounds for opposition set forth in Article 100(c) and (b) EPC did not prejudice the maintenance of the patent. However, the subject-matter of claim 1 as granted lacked novelty over E2. Auxiliary request 1 was said not to comply with Article 123(2) EPC. Although the opposition division found that the subject-matter of claim 1 of the then pending auxiliary request 2 was not obvious in view of E2 as the closest prior art (see section 7.1 of the impugned decision), it arrived at the conclusion that, in view of E47, the feature distinguishing the claimed subject-matter over E2 did not justify an inventive step (page 10 of the impugned decision, penultimate paragraph). The other auxiliary requests were likewise said not to comply with the requirements of the EPC. In particular, the wording of auxiliary request 12 corresponding to auxiliary request 10 submitted with letter dated 18 January 2013 (cf. point 21.2 of the minutes of the oral proceedings before the opposition division) was held to be unclear because of the expression "significantly greater" (see section 8 of the impugned decision).

IV. With the statement of grounds of appeal, the appellant (proprietor) filed thirteen auxiliary requests.

V. With its reply, respondent I filed the following evidence:

E53: Ebert et al., "Report - Accuracy DAQ Temperature

Measurement Set with 18-Sensor Head"

E54: MCS Laboratory, "Calibration Certificate of DAQ

Temperature Measurement Set Serial No. 2001"

E55: Ebert et al., "LC480 TNU Performance Study with

Copper and Aluminium TDP".

VI. With its reply, respondent III filed the following evidence:

E45: Definition of the term "plate" in Oxford Dictionaries

E2': Grafoil**(®), Flexible Graphite, Typical Grafoil**(®) sheet properties

VII. The board issued a communication setting out its preliminary opinion.

VIII. With letter dated 14 November 2016, the appellant inter alia filed auxiliary request 2A.

IX. At the oral proceedings before the board, the appellant declared its auxiliary request 2A to be its main request and withdrew the higher-ranking requests.

Claim 1 of the main request (corresponding to auxiliary request 2A dated 14 November 2016) reads as follows (amendments with respect to claim 1 as granted underlined):

"1. An apparatus for thermally cycling biological sample comprising:

a thermal block assembly (20) for receiving said biological sample;

a thermoelectric module (30) coupled to said thermal block assembly; and

a heat sink (10), wherein said heat sink is coupled to said thermoelectric module, wherein said heat sink comprises a base plate, fins, and a thermal diffusivity plate (12), and wherein said thermal diffusivity plate comprises a different material than said base plate and fins such that the thermal diffusivity plate has at least twenty-five percent greater thermal diffusivity than said base plate and fins,

wherein said thermal diffusivity plate provides substantial temperature uniformity to said thermal block assembly during thermal cycling."

XI. Claims 2 to 9 of the main request are dependent on claim 1 and refer to preferred embodiments thereof.

XII. The appellant's arguments may be summarised as follows:

Admissibility of the main request

The main request was based on auxiliary request 10 dated 18 January 2013 and corresponding to auxiliary request 12 on which the impugned decision was based, with the clarification as included in the revised auxiliary request 2 submitted at the oral proceedings before the opposition division. The further amendment made during the appeal proceedings was a legitimate reaction to the board's preliminary opinion that the claim lacked conciseness. The main request was therefore admissible.

Amendments

The amendments complied with the requirements of Article 123(2) and (3) EPC. Their basis could be found in paragraph [0022] of the application documents as originally filed.

Clarity and conciseness

The requirements of clarity and conciseness were complied with, in particular because claim 1 now included the expression "at least twenty-five percent greater thermal diffusivity".

Sufficiency of disclosure

The requirement of sufficiency of disclosure was complied with as set out in the impugned decision.

Novelty

None of the cited documents disclosed an apparatus according to claim 1 of the main request. In particular, whilst it was requested that the evidence relating to the alleged public prior use of the "Cobas Amplicor Analyser" should not be admitted and that the case should be remitted to the department of first instance if it were to be admitted, this prior use was in any case not prejudicial to the novelty of the apparatus according to claim 1.

Inventive step

E1 represented the closest prior art. From the figures of the patent in suit it was clear that claim 1 at least provided for an alternative apparatus. Using a copper plate instead of the silicone rubber plate of E1 was not obvious. E1 already disclosed parts made of copper and used a thermal interface between the copper parts and the Peltier element. In particular, the parts listed in paragraph [0087] of E1 did not include the thermal interfaces made of silicone rubber. The skilled person would not have dispensed with the silicone rubber plate of E1. Also, there was no evidence that a diffusivity value of 25% and more compared to aluminium could be achieved by boron nitride (BN) filled silicone rubber.

Procedural violation

When assessing the evidence provided with respect to the public prior use of "Mastercycler Gradient", the opposition division had committed a substantial procedural violation by not admitting a discussion of the criteria for the burden of proof concerning the alleged public prior use.

XIII. The respondents' arguments may be summarised as follows:

Admissibility of the main request

The main request should not be admitted into the proceedings. This request did not correspond to the revised auxiliary request 2 submitted at the oral proceedings before the opposition division. It could also not be said to be based on auxiliary request 10 dated 18 January 2013 and corresponding to auxiliary request 12 on which the impugned decision was based. The main request thus constituted a "fresh case" which had not been dealt with in the impugned decision. Also, the "such that ..." feature constituted a feature defined by the result to be achieved. It was not allowable without indication of the essential features necessary for achieving that result, as set out in particular in T 809/12.

Amendments

The deletion of granted claims 11 and 12 led to a different interpretation of the vague expression "substantial temperature uniformity" in claim 1 and therefore resulted in non-compliance with Article 123(2) and (3) EPC. Also, the feature "such that the diffusivity plate ..." could not be based on paragraph [0022] of the application as filed, which referred to "rest of the heat sink" and not to "base plate" and "fins".

Clarity and conciseness

The use of the expression "comprises a different material" in combination with the feature "such that the thermal diffusivity ..." was not clear.

Sufficiency of disclosure

The requirement of sufficiency of disclosure was not met because of the "substantial temperature uniformity" feature. Moreover, the subject-matter of claim 1 did not lead to an apparatus having improved temperature distribution. For that reason too the requirement of sufficiency of disclosure was not met.

Novelty

E1 was novelty-destroying for the subject-matter of claim 1 because at a high BN content, BN-filled rubber could achieve a thermal diffusivity which was 25% higher than that of aluminium, i.e. the material of the heat sink of E1. E2 was also novelty-destroying for the subject-matter of claim 1. In particular, it disclosed the heat sink to be made of "conventional construction". As it was common to manufacture heat sinks from aluminium, E2 disclosed a heat sink made of aluminium and thus the diffusivity relationship called for in claim 1 was complied with. The public prior use of the "Cobas Amplicor Analyser", which included copper platelets and a heat sink made of aluminium, was also novelty-destroying.

Inventive step

Any one of E1, E2 or the public prior uses "Mastercycler Gradient" and "Cobas Amplicor" could be considered the closest prior art. Lack of inventive step should be acknowledged not least because the distinguishing feature did not result in any effect. The subject-matter of claim 1 was also obvious when starting from E2 as the closest prior art. Starting from E1, the subject-matter of claim 1 was also obvious in view of E2, E37, E38 or the public prior use "Cobas Amplicor". The claimed subject-matter did not result in an improved temperature uniformity. In view of Figures 6 to 9 of the patent in suit, it could even be seen to result in a deterioration in temperature uniformity.

XIV. Requests

The appellant (patent proprietor) requested that the decision under appeal be set aside and that the patent be maintained on the basis of the set of claims of the main request (previous auxiliary request 2A) filed with letter dated 14 November 2016. In the alternative, it requested that the patent be maintained in amended form on the basis of one of the lower-ranking auxiliary requests.

Respondents 1 and 3 requested that the appeal be dismissed.

1. Admittance of the main request

1.1 The main request was filed after oral proceedings had been arranged. Admitting it was therefore at the discretion of the board (Article 13(1),(3) RPBA). Claim 1 of the main request differs from that of auxiliary request 2 submitted with the statement of grounds of appeal in that the expression "such that the thermal diffusivity plate has significantly greater thermal diffusivity than said base plate and fins, i.e., at least twenty-five percent greater" has been replaced by "such that the thermal diffusivity plate has at least twenty-five percent greater thermal diffusivity than said base plate and fins". It is uncontested that this amendment was made as a reaction to the board's communication, which had raised an objection for lack of conciseness (see point 19 of the board's communication dated 22 September 2016).

1.2 The respondents did not object to the above amendment as such, but contended that the main request should not be admitted into the proceedings because, apart from the above amendment, it could have been filed in the proceedings before the opposition division (cf. Article 12(4) RPBA). In particular, this request could be based neither on the revised auxiliary request 2 submitted at the oral proceedings before the opposition division, as the limitation concerning the position of the thermal diffusivity plate was omitted, nor on auxiliary request 10 dated 18 January 2013 and corresponding to auxiliary request 12 on which the impugned decision was based, as it did not contain the diffusivity relationship in percent.

1.3 While it is true that the main request is not identical to any request filed in the proceedings before the opposition division, even disregarding the amendment made in reaction to a conciseness objection raised by the board (cf. point 1.1 supra), this is not sufficient reason to hold this request inadmissible.

Claim 1 essentially corresponds to claim 1 of auxiliary request 12 underlying the impugned decision (corresponding to auxiliary request 10 of 18 January 2013) and also includes a clarification of the expression "significantly greater", a clarification which was discussed at the oral proceedings before the opposition division with respect to auxiliary request 2 dated 18 January 2013 (see the minutes, item 9).

The board considers this amendment to be a legitimate reaction to the impugned decision, in which the "significantly greater" feature was held to lack clarity (see "Grounds for the decision", item 8, paragraph "AR 12 - 15"), in order to obviate a possible clarity objection by the board, the feature relating to the diffusivity relationship having already been proposed in the proceedings before the opposition division to overcome a clarity objection in the course of the oral proceedings before the opposition division (cf. revised auxiliary request 2).

1.4 In this respect, the board also disagrees with the respondents' argument that the main request was to be considered a "fresh case". The board understands this expression as referring to a substantial change in the subject of the proceedings. This is clearly not the case here, since claim 1 of the main request, as set out above, essentially corresponds to claim 1 of auxiliary request 12 underlying the impugned decision, with an amendment aimed at rendering the claim clear.

1.5 The respondents also argued that the main request should not be admitted into the proceedings because the feature "such that the thermal diffusivity plate has at least twenty-five percent greater thermal diffusivity ..." constituted a result to be achieved, but the essential features for achieving this result were not present in the claim as required by the case law of the boards of appeal.

The board does not share this view. The contentious feature relates to the relationship between the diffusivity of the diffusivity plate and the diffusivity of the base plate and fins, i.e. it relates to intrinsic properties of these physical entities. Decision T 809/12 cited by the respondents is not applicable in the present case, because it deals with a case in which the feature defined by a result to be achieved essentially corresponded to the problem underlying the patent in suit (see in particular reasons 2.8). In the present case, however, the problem underlying the patent, i.e. improved temperature distribution, does not correspond to the alleged result to be achieved in the claim, i.e. the diffusivity relationship.

1.6 The board therefore saw no reason not to admit the main request into the proceedings. In particular, the filing of the main request did not raise any issues which the board or the respondents could not reasonably have been expected to deal with without adjournment of the oral proceedings (Article 13(3) RPBA).

1.7 For the above reasons, the board admitted the main request into the proceedings.

2. Amendments

2.1 The respondents consider the provisions of Article 123(2) and (3) EPC not to be complied with because granted claims 11 and 12 have been deleted.

The board fails to see why the deletion of these dependent claims should result in an infringement of either provision. Firstly, even if the expression "substantial temperature uniformity" were held to be vague, this feature is present in claim 1 of the application as filed, independently of the presence or absence of any dependent claims. Secondly, the deletion of the dependent claims does not render this expression broader.

2.2 According to the respondents, the feature "such that the thermal diffusivity plate has significantly greater thermal diffusivity than said base plate and fins, i.e. ..." does not comply with Article 123(2) EPC because paragraph [0022] of the originally filed application documents refers to "rest of the heat sink" but does not refer to "base plate" and "fins".

To the board it is clear from the whole of the description as originally filed that the heat sink is composed of the base plate, the fins and the thermal diffusivity plate. Thus with paragraph [0022] referring to "the rest of the heat sink", it is clear to the skilled person that reference is being made to the base plate and the fins.

2.3 No further objections were raised under the provisions of Article 123(2) and (3) EPC.

2.4 For the above reasons, the board is satisfied that these provisions are complied with.

3. Clarity and conciseness

According to the respondents, the use of the expression "comprises a different material" in combination with the diffusivity relationship is not clear because it might mean that only part of the diffusivity plate has to have the required property.

The board does not agree. The diffusivity relationship, albeit not present in the claims as granted, clearly refers to the entirety of the diffusivity plate and not only to a part which would be comprised in it (cf. "such that the thermal diffusivity plate has ...").

Also, the board notes that the expression "a significantly greater thermal diffusivity, i.e. a thermal diffusivity of at least twenty-five percent greater," has been replaced by "such that the thermal diffusivity plate has at least twenty-five percent greater thermal diffusivity than ..." in response to an objection of lack of conciseness raised by the board.

The board therefore concludes that the requirements of clarity and conciseness set forth in Article 84 EPC are complied with.

4. Sufficiency of disclosure

4.1 According to the respondents, the requirement of sufficiency of disclosure is not met. In essence, the skilled person is unable to determine the subject-matter to be protected because of the expression "substantial temperature uniformity".

4.2 The board is not persuaded by this argument. This objection relates to the delimitation of the subject-matter to be protected from other subject-matter not falling under the claims. This objection therefore relates to the clarity of the claims and not to sufficiency of disclosure (cf. T 28/11, reasons 2.3.4).

4.3 Also, the argument that an improvement is not shown over essentially the whole range claimed is not related to the requirement of sufficiency of disclosure but rather to the question of inventive step. In particular, the board notes that claim 1 does not state that the claimed apparatus achieves an improvement, i.e. improved thermal uniformity. Yet not achieving an unclaimed effect cannot form the basis for an objection under Article 83 EPC (T 2001/12, reasons 3.4).

4.4 The board therefore concurs with the opposition division's finding that the requirement of sufficiency of disclosure is complied with.

5. Novelty

5.1 In the course of the appeal proceedings, the respondents referred to documents E1 and E2 and the alleged public prior uses "Mastercycler Gradient" (E33a to E33f) and "Cobas Amplicor Analyser" (documents E49a to E49t6) in relation to lack of novelty.

5.2 The thermal interface elements 62 in E1, which can be considered a "thermal diffusivity plate" in the sense of claim 1 of the main request, are said to be "boron nitride filled silicone rubber" (paragraph [0069]), whereas the heat sink is preferably made of aluminium (middle of paragraph [0056]). The respondents are of the opinion that it is possible to achieve diffusivities which are 25% higher than that of aluminium through increasing the BN content of the silicone rubber. Even if that were the case, the board notes that E1 is silent about the BN content of the silicone rubber. E1 thus does not disclose the BN content, let alone a BN content that would correspond to a diffusivity relationship as called for in claim 1. E1 therefore does not disclose the feature whereby the thermal diffusivity plate has a diffusivity which is at least 25% higher than the base plate and the fins.

5.3 E2 discloses a heat sink that is said to be of "conventional construction" (column 3, lines 44 et seq.). According to the respondents, the elements 41 to 44 being made of copper and the heat sink being implicitly disclosed to be made of aluminium, E2 discloses all the features of claim 1 and in particular the diffusivity relationship that is called for.

While it is uncontested that heat sinks were commonly made of aluminium at the date of publication of E2, this does not mean that aluminium was the sole material suitable for that purpose. Moreover, the board notes that the expression "conventional construction" does not unambiguously refer to the material used but could also refer only to the dimensions of the heat sink. Therefore, the board concludes that E2 neither explicitly nor implicitly disclose the material of which the heat sink is made and hence does not disclose the diffusivity relationship called for in claim 1.

The decisions cited by the respondents (T 667/08, T 801/13 and T 598/12) also do not support their contention that E2 discloses a heat sink made of aluminium. While according to these decisions an explicit disclosure is not necessary in order to satisfy the requirement of Article 123(2) EPC, they do not question the generally accepted principle of direct and unambiguous disclosure of the contentious feature (see in particular T 667/08, reasons 4.1.4). In applying these principles to the present case, the question to be answered is whether the skilled person would construe the expression "conventional construction" as meaning only "made of aluminium" and nothing else (cf. T 801/13, reasons 6, last paragraph). As set out above, this question must be answered in the negative, since the skilled person would not rule out the possibility that the expression also referred to a heat sink of conventional dimensions but made of another highly heat-conductive material.

5.4 With respect to the alleged public prior use of "Mastercycler Gradient", the respondents consider in particular the graphite pad disclosed in E33f to be a thermal diffusivity plate in the sense of claim 1.

E33f relates to a graphite pad with a thickness of 0.2 mm which appears to be highly flexible (see photograph of E33f). This pad is also called "heat conducting foil" or "heat conducting film" ("Wärmeleitfolie") in E33e. The board is of the opinion that such a "film" or "foil" does not qualify as a plate in the sense of claim 1. In this context the board observes that E45 discloses numerous definitions of the term "plate". Although as a general definition it discloses "a thin, flat sheet or strip of metal or other material", at least the first two examples given under point 2 of E45 relate to a flat piece of material having a rigidity that is higher than that of a "film" or a "foil" (cf. "steel plate put into his leg", "brass plate with her initials", licence plate). E45 therefore fails to support the respondents' contention that E33e unambiguously discloses a "thermal diffusivity plate" in the sense of claim 1. Also, the reference to the modulus of elasticity of the foil or film used in the alleged public prior use (see document E2') does not support the respondents' contention that this foil or film would be considered a plate by the skilled person, rigidity being a function not only of elasticity but also of the geometrical dimensions. This means that even at a modulus of elasticity as disclosed in E2', a foil or film having a very small cross-sectional area such as is disclosed in E33e and E33f shows very little rigidity.

Moreover, this alleged public prior use uncontestedly does not disclose the diffusivity relationship called for in claim 1.

5.5 As the present decision is in favour of the appellant, the board does not see the need to give further reasons as to the appellant's request not to admit the evidence relating to the alleged public prior use of the "Cobas Amplicor Analyser" (E49a to E49s and E49t1 to E49t6) or to remit the case to the department of first instance in the event of it being admitted.

The board notes that, according to the evidence provided (see in particular declaration E49a, drawings E49d and E49e, declaration E49j), the copper platelets located above the heat sink are provided on the lower ceramic surface of the Peltier element in the course of the manufacturing process for the Peltier element. The copper platelets are thus part of the thermoelectric module, i.e. separate from the heat sink, and are not part of the heat sink as required in claim 1. The passage in paragraph [0019] of the patent in suit also does not support the respondent's contention that, in the light of the patent specification, the heat sink "comprising" the diffusivity plate would encompass diffusivity plates "being separate from" the heat sink. Clearly, the above passage of the patent in suit distinguishes between "separate from" and "comprise", i.e. it refers to mutually exclusive alternatives. Thus, even if the copper platelets used in this alleged public prior use were held to constitute a thermal diffusivity plate, the skilled person would not consider the heat sink thereof to "comprise a thermal diffusivity plate" as required by claim 1.

5.6 The subject-matter of the sole independent claim 1 is therefore new (Article 54(1),(2) EPC).

6. Inventive step

6.1 Invention

The invention concerns an apparatus for thermally cycling biological samples.

6.2 Closest prior art

6.2.1 The parties present at the oral proceedings agreed that E1 represented the closest prior art. The respondents also submitted in writing that E2 and the alleged public prior uses "Mastercycler Gradient" and "Cobas Amplicor Analyser", too, were suitable starting points for discussing inventive step.

6.2.2 While E2 and E1 are directed to the same purpose as the patent in suit, i.e. providing temperature uniformity, E2 has fewer features in common with the subject-matter of claim 1 than E1. In particular, not only is there no unambiguous disclosure of the "different material" feature, but E2 also does not disclose the heat sink as comprising a diffusivity plate in the sense of claim 1. Moreover, the respondents' argument that the subject-matter of claim 1 does not comply with the requirement of Article 56 EPC is based essentially on the contention that the "plate" feature is not technical. As the "plate" feature clearly has technical character, this line of argument is not persuasive.

6.2.3 As to the alleged public prior use of "Mastercycler Gradient", the board is not convinced that the skilled person would consider the graphite pad disclosed there to be a thermal diffusivity plate in the sense of claim 1 (cf. 5.4 supra). This alleged public prior use is therefore a less promising starting point than E1.

6.2.4 As to the alleged public prior use of "Cobas Amplicor Analyser", the board considers this to be a less suitable starting point for assessing inventive step, because its heat sink does not comprise a thermal diffusivity plate (see 5.5 supra) and, therefore, is structurally more remote from the claimed subject-matter than the apparatus disclosed in E1.

6.2.5 The board therefore starts from E1 as the closest prior art.

6.3 Problem to be solved

According to the patent in suit (cf. in particular paragraphs [0003] and [0040]) and as submitted by the appellant, the problem to be solved is to increase temperature uniformity.

6.4 Success of the solution and reformulation of the problem

6.4.1 The board notes that in E1 the problem of increasing temperature uniformity is already solved (cf. in particular paragraph [0009], last sentence; paragraph [0076]). Moreover, the data provided in the patent does not include examples comparing an apparatus comprising a BN-filled silicone rubber such as the one in E1 with one comprising a material having at least 25% higher diffusivity than aluminium, such as copper. Rather, the data contained in the patent relates to comparisons between configurations that comprise a thermal diffusivity plate and configurations that do not (paragraph [0040], Example 1) or to investigations into other parts of the thermal cycling apparatus (Examples 2 to 4).

6.4.2 According to the appellant, the temperature non-uniformity achieved by the apparatus according to claim 1 was better (lower) than that disclosed in E1.

The board notes that E1 discloses a temperature non-uniformity (TNU) of +/- 0.5**(o)C, corresponding to a TNU value of 1 as defined in the patent in suit (see E1, paragraph [0054], last sentence), and that the TNU value in the apparatus according to claim 1 is below 1 after about 30 seconds (see Figures 6 to 9). The board however also observes, as submitted by the respondents, that the same data of the patent in suit also shows values above TNU=1. Moreover, the board also concurs with the respondents in that the data of E1 and the data of the patent in suit cannot be compared directly because they were obtained in a substantially different manner. In particular, the method for measuring the temperatures in the patent, while not explicitly indicated in the examples, appears to involve measuring the sample (see paragraph [0036]), whereas in E1 it is the temperatures of the thermal block that are measured (paragraph [0053]).

6.4.3 The board therefore concludes that the problem of increasing temperature uniformity over the apparatus known from E1 is not solved. It reaches this conclusion even in the absence of the abundant experimental evidence (including E47, E48 and E53 to E55) provided by the respondents in the written proceedings before the opposition division and before the board and aimed at showing a lack of improvement over E2, which the opposition division considered to constitute the closest prior art.

6.4.4 The problem thus needs to be reformulated and consists in the provision of an alternative apparatus for maintaining temperature uniformity.

The respondents contend that Figures 6 to 9 of the patent in suit show that the claimed subject-matter results in deteriorated thermal uniformity.

The board notes in this respect that the data shown in these figures does not relate to a comparison between an apparatus according to claim 1 and an apparatus according to E1. Moreover, it shows that the claimed apparatus (dotted line in the figures) possesses considerable temperature uniformity at least after 20 seconds (a TNU value of below 2).

The board therefore concludes that the problem of providing an alternative apparatus for maintaining temperature uniformity is indeed solved.

6.5 Obviousness

6.5.1 According to a first line of argument of the respondents, the subject-matter of claim 1 lacks inventive step because of the mere fact that no improvement is shown.

This argument must fail since, for an alleged lack of inventive step, it is not sufficient to show that no improvement is achieved by the claimed subject-matter; it must also actually be obvious to arrive at the claimed subject-matter (cf. T 87/08, reasons 6.2 and 6.3).

6.5.2 According to a second line of argument of the respondents, it is possible to increase the BN content of the silicone rubber disclosed in E1 such that the diffusivity of the BN-filled silicone rubber exceeds the diffusivity of the aluminium plate by 25% and more.

The board notes that the respondents have not provided any evidence in support of this allegation. Even if it were established that it is indeed possible to increase the diffusivity of BN-filled silicone rubber to such an extent that it is at least 25% higher than that of aluminium (the material of the base plate and the fins disclosed in E1), this would not prove that, before the filing date of the patent in suit, this information was publicly available, let alone that it was obvious to increase the BN content of the silicone rubber of E1 accordingly.

6.5.3 According to a third line of argument, the solution was also obvious in view of the fact that copper (which has a diffusivity about 40% higher than that of aluminium, see Table 1 on page 4 of the patent in suit) is known to be an excellent heat conductor and is already used for other components in E1, but is also disclosed in E2, in the alleged public prior use "Cobas Amplicor Analyser" and in E37 and E38. In view of these teachings and considering that a copper plate is easier to manufacture than a BN-filled silicone rubber plate, it was obvious to the skilled person to replace the BN-filled silicone rubber of E1 with a copper plate, thus arriving at a diffusivity relationship as required by claim.

The board agrees with the respondents only to the extent that copper is uncontestedly known to be an excellent heat conductor. The BN-filled silicone rubber of E1 however is said to be compressible and to have elastomeric characteristics (see paragraph [0071]). These properties are used in E1 in order to improve the reliability of the device that it discloses (loc. cit.). Considering this teaching, the skilled person would not have replaced the BN-filled silicone rubber with a copper plate which, albeit compressible to some extent, is far less compressible than the silicone rubber disclosed in E1. Moreover, while it is true that some components of E1 are said to be preferably made of copper (see for instance paragraph [0054]), E1 does not teach to provide the bottom thermal interface plates 62, corresponding to the thermal diffusivity plate according to claim 1, in the form of a copper plate. Rather, the skilled person would refrain from using copper as the thermal interface because E1 teaches that when a component such as the thermal block plate 22 is made of copper in order to thermally couple it with the Peltier elements, top thermal interface plates made of silicone rubber are used (cf. paragraph [0070]).

6.5.4 According to a fourth line of argument of the respondents submitted in the written proceedings, the skilled person would have replaced the silicone rubber plates of E1 with Grafoil**(®) foil or film disclosed in E2.

The board is not persuaded by this argument because, as stated above, the Grafoil**(®) foil or film is not a plate in the sense of claim 1 and therefore, even if the skilled person were to replace the silicone rubber plates of E1 with a Grafoil**(®) foil, he would not arrive at the subject-matter of claim 1.

6.5.5 The other documents cited by the respondents in the written proceedings in the context of the discussion of inventive step, when starting from E2 as the closest prior art, also do not provide evidence that it is obvious to replace the silicon rubber plate known from E1 with a plate made of copper or another material that would fulfil the diffusivity relationship called for in claim 1.

6.6 The board thus concludes that the subject-matter of claim 1 was not obvious in view of the cited prior art and that therefore the requirement of Article 56 EPC is complied with.

7. Alleged procedural violation

7.1 According to the appellant, the opposition division committed a substantial procedural violation by allegedly only permitting a discussion of the admissibility of the alleged public prior use of "Mastercycler Gradient", but not allowing the appellant to present its arguments as to whether the necessary burden of proof had been met by the respondents.

7.2 The board does not see how the opposition division committed a substantial procedural violation when assessing the probative value of the evidence provided in view of the alleged public prior use, in particular because the opposition division arrived at the conclusion that the alleged public prior use was not prejudicial to the patentability of the subject-matter of the claims of the requests underlying the impugned decision (see in particular the impugned decision, reasons 6.2).

7.3 The board thus concludes that the opposition division did not commit a procedural violation, let alone a substantive one, when assessing the evidence provided with respect to the above alleged public prior use.

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The decision under appeal is set aside.

2. The case is remitted to the department of first instance with the order to maintain the patent in amended form on the basis of the claims of the main request (previous auxiliary request 2A) filed with letter dated 14 November 2016 and a description to be adapted thereto.

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