T 0532/20 of 08.02.2023
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:2023:T053220.20230208
- Date of decision
- 8 February 2023
- Case number
- T 0532/20
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- 04704812.9
- Language of proceedings
- English
- Distribution
- Distributed to board chairmen (C)
- Download
- Decision in English
- OJ versions
- No OJ links found
- Other decisions for this case
- -
- Abstracts for this decision
- Abstract on EPC2000 Art 123(2)Abstract on Art 13(2) RPBA 2020
- Application title
- Wind Turbine Generator with a Low Voltage Ride-Through Controller and a Method for Controlling Wind Turbine Components
- Applicant name
- GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
- Opponent name
- Vestas Wind Systems A/S
Nordex Energy GmbH
Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy GmbH & Co. KG
Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy Ltd. - Board
- 3.5.02
- Headnote
- -
- Relevant legal provisions
- European Patent Convention Art 100(b)European Patent Convention Art 100(c)European Patent Convention Art 112(1)European Patent Convention Art 123(2)European Patent Convention Art 84European Patent Convention R 106Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 013(2)
- Keywords
- Intervention of the assumed infringer - admissible (yes)
Grounds for opposition - insufficiency of disclosure (no)
Grounds for opposition - added subject-matter (yes)
Added subject-matter (yes) - auxiliary requests 1 to 5
Clarity (no) - auxiliary request 6 to 9
Amendment after summons - taken into account (no)
Referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal (no)
Objection under Rule 106 (dismissed) - Catchword
- In general, an auxiliary request which is directed to a combination of granted dependent claims as new independent claim, and filed after the statement of grounds or the reply thereto, will be an amendment of the party's appeal case within the meaning of Article 13 RPBA 2020. See reasons 9.
A skilled person assessing the contents of the original application documents uses his technical skill. If they recognise that certain elements of the original application documents are essential for achieving a technical effect then adding that technical effect to a claim without also adding the essential elements can create fresh subject-matter even if the essential elements are originally portrayed as being optional. See reasons 3.6.3.
Order
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The decision under appeal is set aside.
2. The patent is revoked.
3. The request for referral of a question to the Enlarged Board of Appeal is rejected.
4. The objection under Rule 106 EPC is dismissed.