Skip to main content Skip to footer
HomeHome
 
  • Homepage
  • Searching for patents

    Patent knowledge

    Access our patent databases and search tools.

    Go to overview 

    • Overview
    • Technical information
      • Overview
      • Espacenet - patent search
      • European Publication Server
      • Searching Asian documents: patent search and monitoring services
      • EP full-text search
      • Bibliographic coverage in Espacenet and OPS
      • Full-text coverage in Espacenet and OPS
    • Legal information
      • Overview
      • European Patent Register
      • European Patent Bulletin
      • European Case Law Identifier sitemap
      • Searching Asian documents
      • Third-party observations
    • Business information
      • Overview
      • PATSTAT
      • IPscore
      • Patent insight reports
    • Data
      • Overview
      • Linked open EP data
      • Bulk data sets
      • Web services
      • Coverage, codes and statistics
    • Helpful resources
      • Overview
      • First time here?
      • Asian patent information
      • Patent information centres
      • Patent Translate
      • Patent Knowledge News
      • Business and statistics
      • Unitary Patent information in patent knowledge

    UP search

    Learn about the Unitary Patent in patent knowledge products and services

  • Applying for a patent

    Applying for a patent

    Practical information on filing and grant procedures.

    Go to overview 

    • Overview
    • European route
      • Overview
      • European Patent Guide
      • Oppositions
      • Oral proceedings
      • Appeals
      • Unitary Patent & Unified Patent Court
      • National validation
      • Request for extension/validation
    • International route (PCT)
      • Overview
      • Euro-PCT Guide – PCT procedure at the EPO
      • EPO decisions and notices
      • PCT provisions and resources
      • Extension/validation request
      • Reinforced partnership programme
      • Accelerating your PCT application
      • Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH)
      • Training and events
    • National route
    • MyEPO services
      • Overview
      • Understand our services
      • Get access
      • Find a professional representative
      • File with us
      • Interact on your files
      • Online Filing & fee payment outages
      • Tutorials
    • Forms
      • Overview
      • Request for examination
    • Fees
      • Overview
      • European fees (EPC)
      • International fees (PCT)
      • Unitary Patent fees (UP)
      • Fee payment and refunds
      • Warning

    UP

    Unitary Patent

  • Law & practice

    Law & practice

    European patent law, the Official Journal and other legal texts.

    Go to overview 

    • Overview
    • Legal texts
      • Overview
      • European Patent Convention
      • Official Journal
      • EPC Guidelines
      • PCT-EPO Guidelines
      • Guidelines revision cycle
      • Extension / validation system
      • London Agreement
      • National law relating to the EPC
      • Unitary patent system
      • National law relating to the UP
    • Court practices
      • Overview
      • European Patent Judges' Symposium
    • User consultations
      • Overview
      • Ongoing consultations
      • Completed consultations
    • Substantive patent law harmonisation
      • Overview
      • The Tegernsee process
      • Group B+
    • Convergence of practice
    • Options for professional representatives

    legal text

    Legal texts

  • News & events

    News & events

    Our latest news, podcasts and events, including the European Inventor Award.

    Go to overview 

     

    • Overview
    • News
    • Events
    • European Inventor Award
      • Overview
      • About the award
      • Categories and prizes
      • Meet the finalists
      • Nominations
      • Watch the 2022 ceremony
    • Press centre
      • Overview
      • Patent Index and statistics
      • Search in press centre
      • Background information
      • Copyright
      • Press contacts
      • Call back form
      • Email alert service
    • Innovation and patenting in focus
      • Overview
      • Firefighting technologies
      • Green tech in focus
      • CodeFest on Green Plastics
      • Clean energy technologies
      • IP and youth
      • Research institutes
      • Women inventors
      • Fighting coronavirus
      • Lifestyle
      • Space and satellites
      • The future of medicine
      • Materials science
      • Mobile communications
      • Biotechnology
      • Patent classification
      • Digital technologies
      • The future of manufacturing
      • Books by EPO experts
    • "Talk innovation" podcast

    Podcast

    Listen to our podcast

  • Learning

    Learning

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

    Go to overview 

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

    European Patent Academy

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

  • About us

    About us

    Find out more about our work, values, history and vision

    Go to overview 

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

    about us

    Patent Index 2022

 
en de fr
  • Language selection
  • English
  • Deutsch
  • Français
Main navigation
  • Homepage
  • New to patents
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • What's your big idea?
    • Are you ready?
    • What to expect
    • How to apply for a patent
    • Your business and patents
    • Is it patentable?
    • Are you first?
    • Why do we have patents?
    • Patent quiz
    • Unitary patent video
  • Searching for patents
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • Technical information
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Espacenet - patent search
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • National patent office databases
        • Global Patent Index (GPI)
        • Release notes
      • European Publication Server
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Cross-reference index for Euro-PCT applications
        • EP authority file
        • Help
      • Searching Asian documents
      • EP full-text search
      • Bibliographic coverage in Espacenet and OPS
      • Full-text coverage in Espacenet
    • Legal information
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • European Patent Register
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Release notes archive
        • Register documentation
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Deep link data coverage
          • Federated Register
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • BG - Federated Register Service
            • GB - Federated Register Service
            • NL - Federated Register Service
            • MK - Federated Register Service
            • ES - Federated Register Service
            • GR - Federated Register Service
            • SK - Federated Register Service
            • FR - Federated Register Service
            • MT - Federated Register Service
          • Register events
      • European Patent Bulletin
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Download Bulletin
        • EP Bulletin search
        • Help
      • European Case Law Identifier sitemap
      • Searching Asian documents
      • Third-party observations
    • Business information
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • PATSTAT
      • IPscore
        • Go back
        • Release notes
      • Patent insight reports
    • Data
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Linked open EP data
      • Bulk data sets
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Manuals
        • Sequence listings
        • National full-text data
        • European Patent Register data
        • EPO worldwide bibliographic data (DOCDB)
        • EP full-text data
        • EPO worldwide legal event data (INPADOC)
        • EP bibliographic data (EBD)
          • Go back
          • EBD files (weekly download) - free of charge
            • Go back
            • Secure EBD ST.36 files (weekly download) - for national patent offices only
        • Boards of Appeal decisions
        • EP full-text data for text analytics
      • Web services
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Open Patent Services (OPS)
        • European Publication Server
      • Coverage, codes and statistics
        • Go back
        • Weekly updates
        • Updated regularly
    • Helpful resources
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • First time here? Patent information explained.
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Basic definitions
        • Patent classification
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC)
        • Patent families
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • DOCDB simple patent family
          • INPADOC extended patent family
        • Legal event data
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • INPADOC classification scheme
      • Asian patent information
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • China (CN)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Facts and figures
          • Grant procedure
          • Numbering system
          • Useful terms
          • Searching in databases
        • Chinese Taipei (TW)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Grant procedure
          • Numbering system
          • Useful terms
          • Searching in databases
        • India (IN)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Facts and figures
          • Grant procedure
          • Numbering system
        • Japan (JP)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Facts and figures
          • Grant procedure
          • Numbering system
          • Useful terms
          • Searching in databases
        • Korea (KR)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Facts and figures
          • Grant procedure
          • Numbering system
          • Useful terms
          • Searching in databases
        • Russian Federation (RU)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Facts and figures
          • Numbering system
          • Searching in databases
        • Useful links
      • Patent information centres (PATLIB)
      • Patent Translate
      • Patent Knowledge News
      • Business and statistics
      • Unitary Patent information in patent knowledge
  • Applying for a patent
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • European route
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • European Patent Guide
      • Oppositions
      • Oral proceedings
        • Go back
        • Oral proceedings calendar
          • Go back
          • Calendar
          • Public access to appeal proceedings
          • Public access to opposition proceedings
          • Technical guidelines
      • Appeals
      • Unitary Patent & Unified Patent Court
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Unitary Patent
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Legal framework
          • Unitary Patent Guide
          • Main features
          • Applying for a Unitary Patent
          • Cost of a Unitary Patent
          • Translation and compensation
          • Start date
        • Unified Patent Court
      • National validation
      • Extension/validation request
    • International route
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Euro-PCT Guide
      • Entry into the European phase
      • Decisions and notices
      • PCT provisions and resources
      • Extension/validation request
      • Reinforced partnership programme
      • Accelerating your PCT application
      • Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH)
        • Go back
        • Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) programme outline
      • Training and events
    • National route
    • MyEPO services
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Understand our services
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Online Filing 2.0 pilot
        • MyEPO Portfolio - pilot phase
        • Online Filing 2.0 pilot continuation
        • Exchange data with us using an API
      • Get access
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Installation and activation
      • Find a professional representative
      • File with us
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • What if our online filing services are down?
        • Release notes
      • Interact on your files
      • Online Filing & fee payment outages
      • Tutorials
    • Fees
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • European fees (EPC)
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Decisions and notices
      • International fees (PCT)
        • Go back
        • Reduction in fees
        • Fees for international applications
        • Decisions and notices
        • Overview
      • Unitary Patent fees (UP)
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Decisions and notices
      • Fee payment and refunds
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Payment methods
        • Getting started
        • FAQs and other documentation
        • Technical information for batch payments
        • Decisions and notices
        • Release notes
      • Warning
    • Forms
      • Go back
      • Request for examination
  • Law & practice
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • Legal texts
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • European Patent Convention
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Archive
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Documentation on the EPC revision 2000
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • Diplomatic Conference for the revision of the EPC
            • Travaux préparatoires
            • New text
            • Transitional provisions
            • Implementing regulations to the EPC 2000
            • Rules relating to Fees
            • Ratifications and accessions
          • Travaux Préparatoires EPC 1973
      • Official Journal
      • EPC Guidelines
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Archive
      • PCT-EPO Guidelines
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Archive
      • Guidelines revision cycle
      • Extension / validation system
      • London Agreement
      • National law relating to the EPC
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Archive
      • Unitary Patent system
      • National measures relating to the Unitary Patent 
    • Court practices
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • European Patent Judges' Symposium
    • User consultations
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Ongoing consultations
      • Completed consultations
    • Substantive patent law harmonisation
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • The Tegernsee process
      • Group B+
    • Convergence of practice
    • Options for professional representatives
  • News & events
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • News
    • Events
    • European Inventor Award
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • About the award
      • Categories and prizes
      • Meet the finalists
      • Nominations
      • Watch the 2023 ceremony
      • European Inventor Network
        • Go back
        • Activities granted in 2023
    • Press centre
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Patent Index and statistics
      • Search in press centre
      • Background information
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • European Patent Office
        • Q&A on patents related to coronavirus
        • Q&A on plant patents
      • Copyright
      • Press contacts
      • Call back form
      • Email alert service
    • In focus
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Firefighting technologies
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Detection and prevention of fires
        • Fire extinguishing
        • Protective equipment
        • Post-fire restoration
      • Green tech in focus
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • About green tech
        • Renewable energies
        • Energy transition technologies
        • Building a greener future
      • CodeFest on Green Plastics
      • Clean energy technologies
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Renewable energy
        • Carbon-intensive industries
        • Energy storage and other enabling technologies
      • IP and youth
      • Research institutes
      • Women inventors
      • Fighting coronavirus
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Vaccines and therapeutics
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Vaccines
          • Overview of candidate therapies for COVID-19
          • Candidate antiviral and symptomatic therapeutics
          • Nucleic acids and antibodies to fight coronavirus
        • Diagnostics and analytics
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Protein and nucleic acid assays
          • Analytical protocols
        • Informatics
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Bioinformatics
          • Healthcare informatics
        • Technologies for the new normal
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Devices, materials and equipment
          • Procedures, actions and activities
          • Digital technologies
        • Inventors against coronavirus
      • Lifestyle
      • Space and satellites
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Patents and space technologies
      • Healthcare
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Medical technologies and cancer
        • Personalised medicine
      • Materials science
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Nanotechnology
      • Mobile communications
      • Biotechnology
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Red, white or green
        • The role of the EPO
        • What is patentable?
        • Biotech inventors
      • Classification
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Nanotechnology
        • Climate change mitigation technologies
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • External partners
          • Updates on Y02 and Y04S
      • Digital technologies
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • About ICT
        • Hardware and software
        • Patents and standards
        • Artificial intelligence
        • Fourth Industrial Revolution
      • Additive manufacturing
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • About AM
        • AM innovation
      • Books by EPO experts
    • Podcast
  • Learning
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • European Patent Academy
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Learning activities
      • Learning Paths
    • Professional hub
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • EPAC - European patent administration certification
      • EQE - European Qualifying Examination
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Archive
        • Candidates successful in the European qualifying examination
        • Compendium
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Pre-examination
          • Paper A
          • Paper B
          • Paper C
          • Paper D
    • Learning resources by area of interest
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Patent granting
      • Technology transfer and dissemination
      • Patent enforcement and litigation
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Patent enforcement in Europe
        • Patent litigation in Europe
    • Learning resources by profile
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Business and IP managers
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Innovation case studies
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • SME case studies
          • Technology transfer case studies
          • High-growth technology case studies
        • Inventors' handbook
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Introduction
          • Disclosure and confidentiality
          • Novelty and prior art
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • Is the idea ‘obvious’?
            • Prior art searching
            • Professional patent searching
            • Simple Espacenet searching
            • What is prior art?
            • Why is novelty important?
          • Competition and market potential
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • Research guidelines
          • Assessing the risk ahead
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • Exploitation routes
            • Significant commercial potential
            • Significant novelty
            • What about you?
            • What if your idea is not novel but does have commercial potential?
          • Proving the invention
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • Help with design or redesign
            • Prototype strategy
          • Protecting your idea
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • Forms of IPR
            • Patenting strategy
            • The patenting process
          • Building a team and seeking funding
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • Building a team
            • Sources of funding
            • Sources of help for invention
          • Business planning
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • Constructing a business plan
            • Keep it short!
          • Finding and approaching companies
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • First contact
            • Meetings
          • Dealing with companies
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • Advance or guaranteed payment
            • Companies and your prototype
            • Full agreement – and beyond
            • Negotiating a licensing agreement
            • Reaching agreement
            • Royalties
        • Best of search matters
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Tools and databases
          • EPO procedures and initiatives
          • Search strategies
          • Challenges and specific topics
        • Support for high-growth technology businesses
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • For IP professionals
          • For business decision-makers
          • For stakeholders of the innovation ecosystem
        • IP clinics
      • EQE Candidates
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Coffee-break questions
        • Daily D questions
        • European qualifying examination - Guide for preparation
      • Judges, lawyers and prosecutors
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Compulsory licensing in Europe
        • The jurisdiction of European courts in patent disputes
      • National offices and IP authorities
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Learning material for examiners of national officers
        • Learning material for formalities officers and paralegals
      • Patent attorneys and paralegals
      • Universities, research centres and TTOs
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Academic Research Programme
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Completed research projects
          • Current research projects
        • Pan-European Seal Young Professionals Programme
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • For students
          • For universities
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • IP education resources
            • University memberships
          • Our young professionals
          • Professional development plan
        • IP Teaching Kit
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Download modules
        • Intellectual property course design manual
  • About us
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • The EPO at a glance
    • 50 years of the EPC
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • 50 Leading Tech Voices
      • Kids’ collaborative art competition
    • Legal foundations and member states
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Legal foundations
      • Member states
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Member states by date of accession
      • Extension states
      • Validation states
    • Governance
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Communiqués
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • 2022
        • 2021
        • 2020
        • 2019
        • 2018
        • 2017
        • 2016
        • 2015
        • 2014
        • 2013
      • Calendar
      • Documents and publications
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Select Committee documents
      • Administrative Council
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Composition
        • Representatives
        • Rules of Procedure
        • Board of Auditors
        • Secretariat
        • Council bodies
    • Principles & strategy
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Mission, vision, values & corporate policy
      • Strategic Plan 2028
      • Towards a New Normal
      • Data protection & privacy notice
    • Leadership & management
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • About the President
      • Management Advisory Committee
    • Procurement
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Procurement forecast
      • Doing business with the EPO
      • Procurement procedures
      • About eTendering
      • Procurement portal
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • e-Signing contracts
      • Invoicing
      • General conditions
      • Archived tenders
    • Services & activities
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Our services & structure
      • Quality
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Foundations
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • European Patent Convention
          • Guidelines for examination
          • Our staff
        • Enabling quality
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Prior art
          • Classification
          • Tools
          • Processes
        • Products & services
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Search
          • Examination
          • Opposition
          • Continuous improvement
        • Quality through networking
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • User engagement
          • Co-operation
          • User satisfaction survey
          • Stakeholder Quality Assurance Panels
        • Patent Quality Charter
        • Statistics
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Search
          • Examination
          • Opposition
      • Consulting our users
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Standing Advisory Committee before the EPO (SACEPO)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Objectives
          • SACEPO and its working parties
          • Meetings
          • Single Access Portal – SACEPO Area
      • Our user service charter
      • European and international co-operation
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Co-operation with member states
          • Go back
          • Overview
        • Bilateral co-operation with non-member states
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Validation system
          • Reinforced Partnership programme
        • Multilateral international co-operation with IP offices and organisations
        • Co-operation with international organisations outside the IP system
      • European Patent Academy
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Partners
      • Chief Economist
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Economic studies
      • Ombuds Office
      • Reporting wrongdoing
    • Statistics and trends
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Statistics & Trends Centre
      • EPO Data Hub
      • Clarification on data sources
    • Social responsibility
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Environment
      • Art collection
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • The collection
        • Let's talk about art
        • Artists
        • Media library
        • What's on
        • Publications
        • Contact
    • History
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • 1970s
      • 1980s
      • 1990s
      • 2000s
      • 2010s
      • 2020s
    • Transparency portal
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • General
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Annual Review 2022
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Foreword
          • Executive summary
          • Goal 1: Engaged and empowered
          • Goal 2: Digital transformation
          • Goal 3: Master quality
          • Goal 4: Partner for positive impact
          • Goal 5: Secure sustainability
      • Human
      • Environmental
      • Organisational
      • Social and relational
      • Economic
      • Governance
  • Boards of Appeal
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • Decisions of the Boards of Appeal
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Recent decisions
      • Selected decisions
    • Procedure
    • Annual reports
      • Go back
      • Overview
    • Organisation
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • President of the Boards of Appeal
      • Enlarged Board of Appeal
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Pending referrals (Art. 112 EPC)
        • Decisions sorted by number (Art. 112 EPC)
        • Pending petitions for review (Art. 112a EPC)
        • Decisions on petitions for review (Art. 112a EPC)
      • Technical Boards of Appeal
      • Legal Board of Appeal
      • Disciplinary Board of Appeal
      • Presidium
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Composition of the Presidium
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Archive
    • Code of Conduct
    • Business distribution scheme
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Technical boards of appeal by IPC in 2023
      • Archive
    • Annual list of cases
    • Communications
    • Publications
    • Case Law of the Boards of Appeal
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Archive
    • Case Law from the Contracting States to the EPC
    • Oral proceedings
  • Service & support
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • Website updates
    • Availability of online services
      • Go back
      • Overview
    • FAQ
      • Go back
      • Overview
    • Publications
    • Ordering
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Terms and conditions
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Patent information products
        • Bulk data sets
        • Open Patent Services (OPS)
        • Fair use charter
    • Procedural communications
    • Useful links
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Patent offices of member states
      • Other patent offices
      • Legal resources
      • Directories of patent attorneys
      • Patent databases, registers and gazettes
      • Disclaimer
    • Contact us
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Filing options
      • Locations
      • Specific contact
      • Surveys
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Search services
        • Examination services, final actions and publication
        • Opposition services
        • Patent filings
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Detailed methodology
          • Archive
        • Online Services
        • Patent information
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Innovation process survey
        • Customer services
        • Filing services
        • Website
        • Survey on electronic invoicing
        • Companies innovating in clean and sustainable technologies
    • Subscription centre
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Subscribe
      • Change preferences
      • Unsubscribe
    • Official holidays
    • Forums
    • Glossary
Board of Appeals
Decisions

Recent decisions

Overview
  • 2023 decisions
  • 2022 decisions
  • 2021 decisions
https://www.epo.org/en/node/t160796eu1
  1. Home
  2. T 0796/16 19-02-2019
Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email

T 0796/16 19-02-2019

European Case Law Identifier
ECLI:EP:BA:2019:T079616.20190219
Date of decision
19 February 2019
Case number
T 0796/16
Petition for review of
-
Application number
08806283.1
IPC class
B66F 11/04
Language of proceedings
EN
Distribution
NO DISTRIBUTION (D)

Download and more information:

Decision in EN 454.98 KB
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the European Patent Register
Bibliographic information is available in:
EN
Versions
Unpublished
Application title

OPERATOR CAGE

Applicant name
Niftylift Limited
Opponent name

JLG Industries, Inc.

BlueSky Solutions Limited

Board
3.2.01
Headnote
-
Relevant legal provisions
European Patent Convention Art 123(2)
European Patent Convention Art 123(3)
Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 12(4)
European Patent Convention Art 111(1)
Keywords

Amendments - main request, auxiliary request

Amendments - extension beyond the content of the application as filed (yes)

Amendments - auxiliary request 2

Amendments - allowable (yes)

Reformatio in peius - (no)

Late-filed document - admitted (yes)

Remittal to the department of first instance - (yes)

Catchword
-
Cited decisions
G 0001/99
T 1002/92
T 0736/99
T 1380/04
T 0406/09
Citing decisions
-

I. The appeal of the opponent 1 is directed against the decision of the opposition division to maintain European patent No. 2 190 775 in amended form on the basis of the main request filed during the oral proceedings.

II. In its decision the opposition division held that the main request (filed with letter dated 28 October 2015 as auxiliary request 4) was amended on the basis of the originally filed application and was novel and inventive having regard, inter alia, to the following documents (numbering "A" used in opposition proceedings and corresponding numbering "B" as used by the appellant in its grounds of appeal):

A1 (B2): JPH6412100U including a translation;

A6 (B4): US4979588;

A15 (B16): brochure of JLG-"Soft Touch" system, allegedly available in 2002;

A16 (B17): website article reviewing the "Soft Touch" system of A15;

A17 (B9): operation and safety manual from JLG for a variety of boom lift models.

III. Together with its statement of grounds of appeal received on 17 June 2016 the appellant (opponent 1) filed, inter alia, the following document:

B1: JPH04-65300U.

IV. Oral proceedings before the board took place on 19 February 2019.

The appellant (opponent 1) requested that the decision under appeal be set aside and that the European patent be revoked. The objection under Article 83 EPC was no longer maintained.

The respondent (patent proprietor) requested that the appeal be dismissed or, in the alternative, that the patent be maintained in amended form on the basis of the auxiliary request filed with the letter of 15 December 2016 or on the basis of one of auxiliary requests 2 or 3 filed during the oral proceedings.

V. Claim 1 according to the main request corresponds to claim 1 as maintained by the opposition division and reads as follows:

"An operator cage for a machine, the cage (6) comprising a base unit (22), a control console (32), a fence assembly (25) that includes a displaceable fence portion (70) comprising a hand rail or support that extends across the front of the control console (32), wherein the displaceable fence portion (70) is located adjacent the control console (32) to provide a physical barrier between an operator and the control console, a crush sensor (76) that is constructed and arranged to sense an external crush force applied to the displaceable fence portion (70), wherein the crush sensor (76) is constructed and arranged to sense an external crush force only when an external crush force applied to the displaceable fence portion (70) exceeds a predetermined value, and a control device that is constructed and arranged to prevent operation of the machine when the crush sensor (76) senses an external crush force; characterised in that the control console includes an override control that allows limited movement of the cage (6) in a direction away from an obstruction after activation of the control device by the crush sensor sensing an external crush force that exceeds said predetermined value."

Claim 1 according to the auxiliary request filed on 15 December 2016 reads as follows (compared to claim 1 of the main request, features added are underlined):

"An operator cage for a machine, the cage (6) comprising a base unit (22), a control console (32), a fence assembly (25) that includes a displaceable fence portion (70) comprising a hand rail or support that extends across the front of the control console (32), wherein the displaceable fence portion (70) is located adjacent the control console (32) to provide a physical barrier between an operator and the control console and is constructed and arranged to be displaced only when an external crush force applied to the displaceable fence portion exceeds a predetermined value, a crush sensor (76) that is constructed and arranged to sense an external crush force applied to the displaceable fence portion (70) by sensing displacement of the displaceable fence portion, wherein the crush sensor (76) is constructed and arranged to sense an external crush force only when an external crush force applied to the displaceable fence portion (70) exceeds a predetermined value, and a control device that is constructed and arranged to prevent operation of the machine when the crush sensor (76) senses an external crush force; characterised in that the control console includes an override control that allows limited movement of the cage (6) in a direction away from an obstruction after activation of the control device by the crush sensor sensing an external crush force that exceeds said predetermined value."

Claims 1 according to auxiliary requests 2 and 3 filed during the oral proceedings have been modified in comparison to claims 1 of the main request and the auxiliary request filed on 15 December 2016, respectively, by replacing the feature

"a control device that is constructed and arranged to prevent operation of the machine when the crush sensor (76) senses an external crush force"

by the feature

"a control device that is constructed and arranged to prevent movement of the cage when the crush sensor (76) senses an external crush force".

1. Amendments - main request, auxiliary request

1.1 The main request and the auxiliary request as filed on 15 December 2016 must be rejected, since the subject-matter of claim 1 according to these requests does not comply with the requirements of Article 123(2) EPC.

1.2 In particular, the board finds that the feature

"a control device that is constructed and arranged to prevent operation of the machine when the crush sensor senses an external crush force"

added in claim 1 of the main request and in claim 1 of the auxiliary request presents new information to the skilled person which was not directly and unambiguously derivable from the application as filed.

Claim 1 refers to an operator cage for a machine, i.e. the machine does not form part of the claimed subject-matter. As explained in the introductory part of the patent specification (paragraph [0001]), the operator cage may be used with a mobile elevating work platform (MEWP), but also with other machines such as forklifts or telehandlers. Therefore, multiple modes of operation of the operator cage are possible, and the machine might perform tasks or functions which need not be related to the operation of the cage.

The sole basis for the amendment is to be found on page 12 of the application as filed, reciting:

- "switch 76 is connected to a control device (not shown) that controls or restricts operation of the machine" (page 12, lines 9-10; see also page 5, lines 24-25), and

- "the crush sensor senses the external crushing force and activates the control device, which then prevents further movement of the cage" (page 12, lines 14-15).

According to claim 1 ("the cage comprising ... a control device") the control device forms part of the operator cage, whereas the machine includes e.g. in case of a MPEW further parts such as a wheeled base, a boom and a lifting structure (see paragraph [0033] of the patent specification). The normal interpretation of the term "prevent" is "to stop" or "make impossible", as argued by the appellant. The amended feature which specifies a "control device ... to prevent operation of the machine" means that the control device communicates with the machine and stops functioning of the machine as a whole, i.e. the control device of the operator cage must send some inhibit message to the machine to prevent operation of the machine, inhibiting also functions - such as visual or acoustic alarms (as mentioned in the application as filed, 3rd paragraph on page 12) - which might not be related to actuating or moving the operator cage. However, no basis is to be found in the application as filed for this new information provided by the amendment of claim 1. As originally disclosed, operation of the machine is only (somehow) controlled or restricted, whereas movement of the cage is prevented, i.e. only a subset of modes of operation of the machine affecting the cage's movement (such as actuating the hydraulic motors of the wheeled base or the lifting structure of the cage) might be inhibited or prevented.

The term "to prevent" is indeed narrower than the term "to control or restrict", which fully encompasses "to prevent", as argued by the respondent. The board also understands that the invention is directed to a safety system that should prevent - as a first step before allowing limited movement - any movement of the machine (of the wheeled base or of the operator cage) which could lead to an injury of the operator. However, contrary to the respondent's allegation, the amendment "to prevent operation of the machine" expresses not only what is obviously intended to be the invention, but provides additional information which has no basis in the application as filed, as argued above.

1.3 Further objections raised by the appellant under Article 123(2) EPC against claim 1 of the main request (which were to some extent considered by the respondent in filing the auxiliary request) could not convince the board. Since these objections have (at least in part) been dealt with in the contested decision and are relevant also for auxiliary request 2, the board finds it appropriate to express its view also in this regard.

Note: When referring to the application as filed, it is referred to the WO-publication of the PCT-application.

1.3.1 As concerns the feature of "a fence assembly (25) that includes a displaceable fence portion (70) comprising a hand rail or support that extends across the front of the control console (32)", the appellant argues that the inclusion of this combination of features in claim 1 extended beyond the content of the application as filed and was clearly not suggested in the original application as filed.

As admitted by the appellant, claim 19 as originally filed shows a fence assembly including a displaceable fence portion. It remains to be discussed whether a "displaceable fence portion comprising a hand rail or support that extends across the front of the control console (32)" is also originally disclosed. The embodiments described in the application as filed either show a hand rail 70 (Figs. 12-15) or a hand rail 80 (Figs. 16, 17) that extends across the front of the control console (see also page 12, lines 1-2 and 22, as referred to by the appellant). As can be derived from these figures, hand rails 70 and 80 correspond to a displaceable portion as claimed, and the function of being displaceable is explicitly described (see e.g. page 12, last paragraph of the description as filed: "allowing the hand rail 80 to be displaced downwards").

The appellant's argument that the hand rail was never described as being part of the fence assembly could not be followed, since claim 1 (on the basis of claim 19 as originally filed) already specifies the displaceable fence portion to form part of the fence assembly, and the hand rail represents (see originally filed figures) the displaceable fence portion extending across the front of the control console, as required by claim 1.

Moreover, the second alternative "or a support" claimed and objected to only characterises the hand rail's function and is explicitly disclosed in the same context as specified in claim 1 (page 9, 3rd paragraph: "hand rail 80 that extends across the front of the console. This hand rail 80 provides the operator 8 with a support"; see also page 12, lines 1-3). Therefore, the appellant's arguments relying solely on the disclosure of the embodiment of Figure 16 and 17 (i.e. page 13, lines 3 to 4), in which the concept of the 'support' allegedly was inextricably linked to features of this embodiment, could not convince the board.

1.3.2 The appellant further objects to the removal of features (as underlined below) stemming from original claim 19 as filed, which formed the basis for claim 1 as amended during opposition and reads as follows:

"An operator cage for a machine, the cage comprising a base unit, a fence assembly that includes a displaceable fence portion and a crush sensor that is constructed and arranged to sense displacement of the displaceable fence portion, wherein the displaceable fence portion is constructed and arranged to be displaced only when an external crush force applied to the displaceable fence portion exceeds a predetermined value."

The appellant argues that claim 1 represented a generalisation of the originally claimed inventive concept of claim 19. As there was no other allowable 'building blocks' within the content of the application as filed for a claim to the generalised combination of features of granted claim 1, claim 1 of the patent contravened Article 123(2) EPC. The board cannot follow this view for the following reasons:

(a) In the board's view, replacement of the term "to sense displacement of" by "to sense an external crush force", i.e. omitting the feature of sensing displacement is allowable. As originally disclosed (see page 12, 2nd paragraph of the application as filed), a sufficient downward bias force is required to overcome the bias force of a spring, i.e. displacement of the hand rail requires a certain crush force. Moreover, it is explicitly described (see page 13, first paragraph of the application as filed) that the crush sensor may be realised either by measuring displacement of the hand rail (e.g. via switch), or alternatively, by measuring an excessive crush force (using pressure sensors or strain gauges) applied to the console or hand rail or support. Therefore, contrary to the appellant's argument regarding extraction of isolated features or deletion of essential features that might be indispensable for the function of the invention, sensing of crush force is explicitly taught as an alternative to sensing displacement. Therefore, the board cannot follow the appellant that an originally disclosed combination of features has been generalised.

Moreover, the board does not follow the appellant in that a further feature from claim 20 as originally filed ("sensing an external crush force applied to an upper portion of the fence assembly") should have been included in claim 1, since the rather unspecific term "upper portion of the fence assembly" of original claim 20 has been replaced by "displaceable fence portion" which is even defined in claim 1 more concretely ("displaceable fence portion comprising a hand rail or support that extends across the front of the control console"). The board cannot see that a disclosed specific feature has been replaced by a broad general expression, as alleged by the appellant.

(b) Furthermore, the appellant asserts an unallowable intermediate generalisation in view of the claim language of the patent specifying that the crush sensor senses the external crush force above a predetermined value, whereas claim 19 as originally filed recited "wherein the displaceable fence portion is constructed and arranged to be displaced only when an external crush force applied to the displaceable fence portion exceeds a predetermined value". However, the board finds that this amendment only shifts the focus of the claimed invention from the mechanics of the displaceable fence portion (a hand rail biased by a compression spring, which requires an external crush force exceeding a predetermined value to be displaced) to the sensor device (crush sensor sensing an external crush force exceeding a predetermined value). Since both aspects are originally disclosed (see page 12 of the application as filed), the skilled reader is not presented with new technical information. Moreover, as argued already further above, see (a), sensing of crush force is explicitly taught as an alternative to sensing displacement. Therefore, the board cannot see that such redefinition of the claimed subject-matter amounts to an unallowable intermediate generalisation, or that an essential feature or a feature indispensable for the functioning of the invention is missing, as argued by the appellant.

1.3.3 As regards the characterising feature of claim 1, the appellant argues again an unallowable intermediate generalisation and omission of an essential feature, since allegedly the concept of 'activation' of the control device was inextricably linked to sensing of the displacement of the hand rail. However, activation of the control device by the crush sensor when sensing an external crush force is explicitly disclosed in the application as filed (see page 12, 3rd paragraph). The board therefore cannot see that new information should be provided by the characterising portion of claim 1. Moreover, as argued already further above, omission of the sensing of displacement does not present an issue under Article 123(2) EPC either.

1.3.4 Finally, the appellant objects to the omission in claim 1 of the term "in use" (as originally disclosed in claim 21 as filed: "to provide in use a physical barrier") when specifying the displaceable fence portion to be "located adjacent the control console to provide a physical barrier between an operator and the control console". The board cannot see a problem under Article 123(2) EPC in this respect. Claim 1 represents a product claim (relating to an operator cage), and the additional term "in use" would not specify further the physical barrier between an operator and the control console. The board follows the respondent in that the term "in use" is superfluous and does not affect the scope of claim 1, as the barrier is present even when the machine is not in use. Moreover, the "operator" mentioned in claim 1, which does not represent a structural feature of the claim, already takes into account the "use"-aspect of the claimed subject-matter.

2. Auxiliary request 2

2.1 Auxiliary request 2 was filed during the oral proceedings in order to meet the objection under Article 123(2) EPC with regard to the feature "to prevent operation of the machine" (see point 1.2).

2.2 The appellant raised the following objections in this regard:

- Auxiliary request 2 could have been filed earlier in view of the preliminary opinion in the board's communication. In particular, it was not easy to judge on the allowability of the new request, as the scope of the claim had been changed.

- There was still a problem under Article 123(2) EPC, as the two passages on page 12 of the application as filed (lines 9-11 and 13-15) were inextricably linked.

- As claim 1 of auxiliary request 2 now only referred to the control signal of the cage (and not of the machine), it would put the appellant in a worse position, which was not allowable in view of the prohibition of reformatio in peius (G 1/99). In particular, the narrowest limitation should be included (see T 1380/04) as disclosed by the linked passages on page 12 of the application as filed.

2.2.1 As regards the issue of reformatio in peius in case of the opponent being the sole appellant, the Enlarged Board of Appeal has identified in decision G 1/99 (OJ EPO 2001, 381) the criteria to be applied in cases such as the present case, i.e. where the patent proprietor files during appeal proceedings an auxiliary request deleting an inadmissible amendment that was allowed by the opposition division.

The appellant's objection in this respect suggests that replacing in claim 1 of auxiliary request 2 the term "to prevent operation of the machine" by the originally disclosed feature "to prevent movement of the cage" might not be a further limitation of the scope of the patent as amended (first criterion in G 1/99; such restriction would not contravene the principle of the prohibition of a reformatio in peius).

Following the appellant that the amended feature of claim 1 of auxiliary request 2 ("a control device that is constructed and arranged to prevent movement of the cage") only specifies a control by the control device (of the cage) with respect to the cage, the control might not rely on an exchange of information with the machine, assuming that control and, in particular, movement of the cage independent from the operation of the machine is possible. This would mean that the scope of protection might have been shifted by the amended feature. However, in this case the amendment provided by auxiliary request 2 satisfies the second criterion defined in G 1/99, according to which an amendment introducing an originally disclosed feature has to be within the limits of Article 123(3) EPC when extending the scope of the patent as maintained. Article 123(3) EPC refers to the scope of protection of the patent as granted, which in the present case does not yet include the feature of a control device or control in reaction to the crush sensor sensing an external crush force. Therefore, further specifying a control device of the cage and its function in comparison to granted claim 1 only provides a further restricted scope of protection and thus satisfies the requirements of Article 123(3) EPC.

The appellant, by referring to decision T 1380/04, also argues that it was required to include the narrowest limitation. In the case dealt with in T 1380/04, removal of a terminology was not required and constituted an inadmissible amendment, as amendments were available which could be introduced to limit the scope of the patent as maintained. However, in the present case the term "to prevent operation of the machine" is not disclosed in the application as filed and has to be removed (see above point 1.2), i.e. limitation by introducing further features cannot solve the problem under Article 123(2) EPC.

2.2.2 The appellant's allegation that two passages in the application as filed (page 12, lines 9-11 and 13-15) which related to the control device were inextricably linked, i.e. that the amendment according to auxiliary request 2 constituted an unallowable intermediate generalisation, could not convince the board.

The first passage describes that switch 76 is connected to a control device and specifies the function of the control device rather vaguely ("controls or restricts operation of the machine"). In the second passage, this function is defined more precisely ("prevents further movement of the cage"), thereby specifying that the control is done in a particular way, as argued by the respondent. The board cannot see that these passages are inextricably linked so that further features have to be included in amended claim 1 according to the auxiliary request 2 to satisfy the requirements of Article 123(2) EPC.

2.2.3 As regards the point in time of filing auxiliary request 2, it is noted that the issue to be solved by filing this request (and also a further amendment) had been decided by the opposition division in favour of the respondent. With its grounds of appeal, numerous objections under Article 123(2) EPC were raised regarding different amendments in claim 1, not all of which were dealt with in the contested decision. Thus, several routes for filing auxiliary requests were opened depending on the board's judgement of each amendment. A communication of the board pursuant to Article 15(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal (RPBA, OJ EPO 2007, 536) sent out three weeks prior to the date scheduled for oral proceedings did not yet contain a binding opinion.

Moreover, even assuming a change in scope of claim 1 of auxiliary request 2 as argued by the appellant, judging on the allowability of the new request (see above points 2.2.1, 2.2.2) turned out to be neither complex nor required adjournment of the oral proceedings.

2.3 Taking into account this course of events (see point 2.2.3) and that the additional issues raised during the oral proceedings (see also points 2.2.1 and 2.2.2) could easily be discussed, the board finds that filing of auxiliary request 2 during the oral proceedings was a legitimate and timely reaction, respecting the need for procedural economy and not raising complex issues to be discussed. The board therefore exercised its discretion and admitted auxiliary request 2 filed during the oral proceedings into the appeal proceedings in accordance with Article 114(2) EPC and Articles 13(1) and (3) RPBA.

3. Admission of document B1 into the appeal proceedings

3.1 Document B1 was filed by the appellant for the first time with its statement setting out the grounds of appeal. A contentious issue between the parties was whether B1 could and should have been filed earlier.

Pursuant to Article 12(4) RPBA, the board has the power to hold inadmissible facts, evidence or requests which could have been presented or were not admitted in the first-instance proceedings. According to the established case law, a strong indication not to admit new evidence into the appeal proceedings is that the document fails to be prima facie more relevant than those already in the proceedings.

3.2 The submissions of the parties in this respect can be summarised as follows:

3.2.1 The respondent objected to the late filing of B1 and submitted that it should not be admitted into appeal proceedings in view of the following circumstances:

Claim 1 of the patent as maintained was identical to claim 5 of auxiliary request 3 as filed on 24 September 2014, which was based on claims 1 and 3 of the auxiliary request filed on 26 April 2013, which in turn was based (with only minor amendments) on claim 19 of the application as filed. Therefore, the direction taken by the proprietor had been clear from quite early in opposition proceedings. The opponent had responded in full to the auxiliary request on 11 November 2013, submitting evidence and arguments regarding the novelty and inventive step. Therefore, document B1 could and should have been found earlier.

Moreover, claim 1 as maintained during opposition was based primarily on the features of claims 1 and 3-7 of the patent as granted, with only few additional features taken from the description. The most important features of the invention had therefore been clear from the date of grant of the patent. If the opponent had failed to submit evidence during the opposition period, it should not be permitted to file that evidence now in appeal proceedings. It was irrelevant that the preliminary opinion of the opposition division was unfavourable to the proprietor. The requirements indicated in T 1002/92 were not met, according to which late-filed evidence should be admitted into appeal proceedings only very exceptionally, and only if prima facie the evidence was likely to affect the validity of the patent. In particular, B1 did not disclose an override control as claimed. Although B1 allowed a movement away from the obstruction, the normal meaning of "override control" required a 2-step process, i.e. a conscious decision made by the operator (the operator physically pressing the override control) after activation of the control device by the crush sensor. Moreover, a novelty objection as presented by the opponent could not be based on a combination of features taken from different machines, namely the prior art machine shown in Figure 3 of B1 and the new machine shown in Figures 1 and 2.

3.2.2 While admitting that document B1 was late filed, the appellant requests admission of B1 into the appeal proceedings on the basis that B1 was prima facie relevant to the validity of the patent. On detailed inspection, it transpired that B1 was potentially novelty-destroying for claim 1 of the patent as amended and more relevant than B2. At the least B1 was useful to provide further support for the inventive step attacks previously raised in combination with B2. B1 clearly showed a cut-off of the hydraulic line by the restriction valve 22 so that operation of the machine was prevented. As B1 stated (page 7, 2nd paragraph) that it was possible to move the wheeled vehicle in a safe direction, a decision was clearly made, which for the skilled person implied that there must be some override control.

According to the appellant, document B1 could not reasonably have been presented previously, and filing of B1 was occasioned by the contested decision. Inventive step arguments against features corresponding to those that were ultimately included in the patent as maintained had been raised by the opponent before the oral proceedings on the basis of B2 and B9 (A1 and A17 from the opposition proceedings). In particular in its submission of 10 December 2014, it was submitted that independent claim 5 of the main request (on which claim 1 as maintained during opposition was based) lacked an inventive step in view of a combination of A1 and A15 and/or A1 and A17. The opposition division had agreed with those arguments, not least in their summons to oral proceedings dated 23 April 2015 (see paragraph 2.1.4). However, the opposition division had reversed its preliminary opinion in the oral proceedings and issued an adverse decision, taking the view that documents B2 and B9 were not compatible. Accordingly, additional search became necessary in reaction to the reasoning in the contested decision (see T 736/99).

Specifically, B1 had been found attempting to find prior art to support the previously presented inventive step arguments with respect to the use of B9 (A17), to thereby fill gaps exposed in the previous arguments, with respect to the override control aspect of claim 1 (presented as main request for the first time during oral proceedings), which was allowable under T 406/09.

3.3 Taking into account the course of opposition proceedings, the board sees no reason for exercising its discretion under Article 12(4) RPBA not to admit document B1 into the appeal proceedings.

3.3.1 The override control aspect of claim 1 stems from dependent claim 7 as granted, which is dependent on granted claim 1 and at least claim 6. In its notice of opposition, the opponent (appellant) argued lack of novelty over document A6 (B4 in appeal proceedings) in respect of granted claims 1, 6 and 7.

This aspect was also present in claims 1 and 3 of the auxiliary request filed on 26 April 2013, and in claim 1 of the patent as maintained, which was identical to claim 5 of auxiliary request 3 filed on 24 September 2014, as argued by the respondent, or basically (except for the additional characterisation of the limited movement allowed by the override control to be "in a direction away from an obstruction") even to claim 5 of the main request filed the same date. In view of the filing of these requests by the patent proprietor later in opposition proceedings, further evidence A15 or A17 was filed by the opponent to support a lack of an inventive step (starting from A1) of the override control aspect.

3.3.2 As argued by the appellant, the opposition division followed (in its preliminary opinion of 23 April 2015) the opponent's view of lack of inventive step of independent claim 5 of the main request filed on 24 September 2014, having regard to document A1 (B2) in combination with A17 (B9).

Moreover, according to the contested decision (see point 6), the opposition division indeed acknowledged that documents A15 and A17 had been filed in response to the "override control" added to the granted subject-matter. Contrary to the preliminary opinion of the opposition division, the opponent's inventive step objection combining A1 (B2) and A17 (B9) was then rejected on the ground that the skilled person would not combine documents A1 and A17 (see point 5.4).

3.3.3 In view of this course of events, the board agrees with the appellant that it could not have been reasonably expected to file further evidence already in first-instance proceedings, as argued by the respondent. Therefore, the filing of document B1 with its grounds of appeal is considered to be a legitimate reaction of the appellant to the contested decision in which the the opposition division changed its view when judging on inventive step.

3.4 Furthermore, irrespective of whether B1 was filed in due time (as in T 406/09, in which case assessing of relevance could be dispensed with) or has to be considered as belated (as in T 736/99), the board finds that B1 appears prima facie more relevant to the novelty and/or inventive step of at least claim 1 than any other document already in the proceedings.

Contrary to the respondent's argument as regards the appellant's novelty objection on the basis of B1, the board takes the view that features of the prior art machine according to Figure 3 of B1 and those of the machine according to Figures 1 and 2 of B1 can be combined. The description of the preferred embodiment of the invention as shown in Figures 1 and 2 in B1 refers to an aerial-lift industrial vehicle as shown in B1 in Figure 3, as explicitly stated on page 5, line 3. Thus, all the features of the preamble of claim 1 seem to be disclosed in B1. It is explicitly stated in B1 (paragraph bridging pages 6 and 7) that further travel of the machine is prevented when movement of a bar member, due to a worker making contact with an obstacle, is detected. Moreover, the board finds that document B1 shows at least by way of a functional description ("possible to move the wheeled vehicle in a safe direction") that limited movement of the cage in a direction away from an obstruction is allowed in B1, which is more than what is known from other documents which are in the proceedings, such as B2. Whether this disclosure is novelty-destroying to the subject-matter of claim 1 needs not to be answered in the course of a prima facie evaluation of document B1.

3.5 In view of the foregoing, the board finds that B1 is prima facie more relevant than what is already on file and might change the outcome of the case when it comes to the discussion of novelty and/or inventive step. Therefore, document B1 is admitted into the appeal proceedings.

4. Request for remittal

4.1 Having admitted document B1 into appeal proceedings, the respondent requested that the case be remitted back to the opposition division for further consideration in accordance with the established case law on admission of a potentially novelty-destroying document. The request for remittal was also supported by the appellant during oral proceedings.

4.2 Although the EPC does not guarantee the parties an absolute right to have all the issues in the case considered by two instances, it is well recognised that any party may be given the opportunity of two readings of the important elements of a case. The essential function of an appeal is to consider whether the decision issued by the first-instance department is correct. Hence, a case is normally referred back if essential questions regarding the patentability of the claimed subject-matter have not yet been examined and decided by the department of first instance.

4.3 In the present case, the respondent is faced with a new case concerning a document which is prima facie more relevant to novelty and/or inventive step of the claims than other documents already in the proceedings.

Therefore, the board considers it appropriate to remit the case to the first instance for further prosecution in accordance with Article 111(1) EPC, so as to allow the respondent to receive a reasoned decision taking B1 into account.

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The decision under appeal is set aside.

2. The case is remitted to the opposition division for further prosecution on the basis of claims 1 to 9, submitted as auxiliary request 2 during the oral proceedings.

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