T 1599/18 (Multispectral skin biometrics / HID 4) of 24.06.2021
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T159918.20210624
- Date of decision
- 24 June 2021
- Case number
- T 1599/18
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- 10181332.7
- IPC class
- G06K 9/00
- Language of proceedings
- English
- Distribution
- No distribution (D)
- Download
- Decision in English
- OJ versions
- No OJ links found
- Other decisions for this case
- -
- Abstracts for this decision
- -
- Application title
- Multispectral imaging biometrics
- Applicant name
- HID Global Corporation
- Opponent name
- Idemia Identity & Security France
- Board
- 3.5.06
- Headnote
- -
- Relevant legal provisions
- European Patent Convention Art 100(a)European Patent Convention Art 113(1)European Patent Convention Art 52European Patent Convention Art 54(1)European Patent Convention Art 54(2)European Patent Convention Art 54(3)European Patent Convention R 116(2)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 12(4)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 13(1)
- Keywords
- Novelty - (no)
Novelty - implicit disclosure (yes/no)
Right to be heard - opportunity to comment (yes)
Right to be heard - substantial procedural violation (no)
Late-filed request - request identical to request not admitted in first instance proceedings
Late-filed request - request could have been filed in first instance proceedings (yes)
Amendment to appeal case - suitability of amendment to resolve issues raised (no) - Catchword
- Lack of novelty (see point 14): there is no need that a prior art document explicitly mentions the claimed features. It is necessary and sufficient that an embodiment falling under the claim scope be directly and unambiguously derivable from the prior art document. That an alternative exists does not change this: it is possible that multiple alternatives can be considered directly und unambiguously derivable, even when none is explicitly mentioned.
Right to be heard (see points 18 and 29): the right to be heard does not entail a right to an amendment, but a right to present comments on why a specific request should be admitted to the proceedings. - Citing cases
- -
Order
For these reasons it is decided that:
The appeal is dismissed.