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
    Plastics in Transition

    Technology insight report on plastic waste management

  • 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 0246/22 (Software update for an elevator system/OTIS) 09-01-2024
Facebook X Linkedin Email

T 0246/22 (Software update for an elevator system/OTIS) 09-01-2024

European Case Law Identifier
ECLI:EP:BA:2024:T024622.20240109
Date of decision
09 January 2024
Case number
T 0246/22
Petition for review of
-
Application number
16275165.5
IPC class
H04L 29/08
B66B 5/00
G06F 8/65
G05B 19/042
B66B 1/34
Language of proceedings
EN
Distribution
DISTRIBUTED TO BOARD CHAIRMEN (C)

Download and more information:

Decision in EN 568 KB
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the European Patent Register
Bibliographic information is available in:
EN
Versions
Unpublished
Application title

Automated passenger conveying system manipulation via an automated remote activation and validation of controller software

Applicant name
Otis Elevator Company
Opponent name
KONE Corporation
Board
3.5.03
Headnote
-
Relevant legal provisions
European Patent Convention Art 56
European Patent Convention R 139
Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 12(4)
European Patent Convention Art 123(2)
Keywords

Inventive step - main, 1st and 10th auxiliary requests (no): juxtaposition of obvious features

Admittance of "carry-over requests" - 3rd to 8th auxiliary requests (no): not demonstrated that "admissibly raised" and not suitable to address the relevant issues; T 42/20 and T 476/21 not followed

Admittance of claim requests filed on appeal - 2nd, 9th and 11th auxiliary requests (no): not suitable to address the relevant issues and not convergent

Catchword

I. The onus to "demonstrate" that submissions were

"admissibly raised and maintained" within the meaning of

Article 12(4) RPBA lies, as a general rule, with the

party.

II. The minimum requirement under Article 12(4), first

sentence, RPBA for demonstrating that claim requests were

"admissibly raised" in the proceedings leading to the

decision under appeal is twofold, namely that the party

shows

(1) that the requests were filed in due time, typically

before the expiry of the time limit set by the

opposition division under Rule 116(1) and (2) EPC,

and

(2) that it was made clear, explicitly or by way of

unambiguous implication, for what purpose the

requests were filed, i.e. which objections raised by

the other party or the opposition division they try

to overcome and how this is actually achieved.

Cited decisions
R 0006/19
T 0042/20
T 0221/20
T 0364/20
T 1800/20
T 0476/21
Citing decisions
T 1522/20
T 1913/21
T 0389/22
T 0951/22
T 1135/22
T 1659/22
T 1749/22
T 2364/22
T 2366/22
T 0449/23
T 0506/23
T 1178/23
T 1947/23

I. The appeals of the proprietor (appellant I) and the opponent (appellant II) lie from the decision of the opposition division to maintain the opposed patent in amended form according to an "auxiliary request 1". The opposition division found that the subject-matter of the claims as granted (main request) did not involve an inventive step (Articles 100(a) and 56 EPC).

II. The opposition division referred, inter alia, to the following prior-art document:

E1: JP 2006-264877 A.

III. Oral proceedings were held before the board on 9 January 2024. The final requests of the parties were as follows:

- The proprietor requested that the appealed decision be set aside and that the opposition be rejected (main request). Alternatively, it requested that the patent be maintained in amended form in accordance with one of auxiliary requests 1 to 11 submitted with its statement of grounds of appeal (of which auxiliary requests 9 and 10 were later subjected to a request for correction submitted with letter of 7 September 2023).

- The opponent requested that the appealed decision be set aside and that the patent be revoked.

At the end of the oral proceedings, the board's decision was announced.

IV. Claim 1 of the main request (patent as granted) reads as follows:

"A method for automatic updating of a first controller application in a component (109) of an automated passenger conveying device (101), comprising:

downloading a second controller application in response to a software compatibility check (312);

characterised by:

scheduling a switchover (344) in response to the downloading of the second controller application

disabling the automated passenger conveying device (101) from providing service;

performing the switchover (344) from the first controller application to the second controller application;

performing a post-switchover inspection (352) of the second controller application that determines whether the automated passenger conveying device (101) works properly while the second controller application is active; and

enabling the automated passenger conveying device (101) to provide the service when the

post-switchover inspection (352) of the second controller application determines that the automated passenger conveying device (101) works properly."

V. Claim 1 of auxiliary request 1 reads as follows (amendments vis-à-vis claim 1 of the main request indicated by the board):

"A method for automatic updating of a first controller application in a component (109) of an automated passenger conveying device (101), comprising:

downloading a second controller application in response to a software compatibility check (312);

characterised by:

scheduling a switchover (344) in response to the downloading of the second controller application, comprising determining a time of day when the automated passenger conveying device (101) is least active and slotting the switchover for that time;

disabling the automated passenger conveying device (101) from providing service;

performing the switchover (344) from the first controller application to the second controller application;

performing a post-switchover inspection (352) of the second controller application that determines whether the automated passenger conveying device (101) works properly while the second controller application is active; and

enabling the automated passenger conveying device (101) to provide the service when the post-switchover inspection (352) of the second controller application determines that the automated passenger conveying device (101) works properly."

VI. Claim 1 of auxiliary request 2 reads as follows (amendments vis-à-vis claim 1 of auxiliary request 1 indicated by the board):

"A method for automatic updating of a first controller application in a component (109) of an automated passenger conveying device (101), said automated passenger conveying device being one of a plurality of automated passenger conveying devices within an automated passenger conveying system, each of the plurality of automated passenger conveying devices comprising a corresponding component, the method comprising:

downloading a second controller application in response to a software compatibility check (312);

characterised by:

scheduling a switchover (344) in response to the downloading of the second controller application, comprising determining a time of day when the automated passenger conveying [deleted: device] system [deleted: (101)] is least active and slotting the switchover for that time;

disabling the automated passenger conveying device (101) from providing service;

performing the switchover (344) from the first controller application to the second controller application;

performing a post-switchover inspection (352) of the second controller application that determines whether the automated passenger conveying device (101) works properly while the second controller application is active; and

enabling the automated passenger conveying device (101) to provide the service when the post-switchover inspection (352) of the second controller application determines that the automated passenger conveying device (101) works properly."

VII. Claim 1 of auxiliary request 3 reads as follows (amendments vis-à-vis claim 1 of the main request indicated by the board):

"A method for automatic updating of a first controller application in a plurality of components (109) of a corresponding plurality of automated passenger conveying devices (101) within an automated passenger conveying system, comprising:

downloading a second controller application to the plurality of components (109) in response to a plurality of corresponding software compatibility checks (312);

scheduling [deleted: a] switchovers (344) for each of the plurality of automated passenger conveying devices (101) in response to the downloading of the second controller application;

disabling the plurality of automated passenger conveying devices (101) from providing service; performing the plurality of switchovers (344) from the first controller application to the second controller application;

performing [deleted: a] post-switchover inspections (352) of the second controller application that determine[deleted: s] whether each of the plurality of automated passenger conveying devices (101) works properly while the second controller application is active; and

enabling each of the plurality of automated passenger conveying devices (101) to provide the service when the post-switchover inspections (352) of the second controller application determine[deleted: s] that each of the automated passenger conveying devices (101) works properly

wherein the switchovers (344) are coordinated such that one of the plurality of automated passenger conveying devices (101) is taken out of service at a time."

VIII. Claim 1 of auxiliary request 4 reads as follows (amendments vis-à-vis claim 1 of auxiliary request 3 indicated by the board):

"A method for automatic updating of a first controller application in a plurality of components (109) of a corresponding plurality of automated passenger conveying devices (101) within an automated passenger conveying system, comprising:

downloading a second controller application to the plurality of components (109) in response to a plurality of corresponding software compatibility checks (312);

scheduling switchovers (344) for each of the plurality of automated passenger conveying devices (101) in response to the downloading of the second controller application;

disabling the plurality of automated passenger conveying devices (101) from providing service; performing the plurality of switchovers (344) from the first controller application to the second controller application;

performing post-switchover inspections (352) of the second controller application that determines whether each of the plurality of automated passenger conveying devices (101) works properly while the second controller application is active; [deleted: and]

enabling each of the plurality of automated passenger conveying devices (101) to provide the service when the post-switchover inspections (352) of the second controller application determines that each of the automated passenger conveying devices (101) works properly;

sending to a network monitoring system (303) a message (354) indicating that a switchover (344) was completed when the corresponding post-switchover inspection (352) of the second controller application determines that the automated passenger conveying device (101) works properly; and

sending a notification to a user indicating that a switchover (344) was not completed when the corresponding post-switchover inspection (352) of the second controller application determines that the automated passenger conveying device (101) does not work properly;

wherein the switchovers (344) are coordinated such that one of the plurality of automated passenger conveying devices (101) is taken out of service at a time."

IX. Claim 1 of auxiliary request 5 reads as follows (amendments vis-à-vis claim 1 of auxiliary request 4 indicated by the board):

"A method for automatic updating of a first controller application in a [deleted: plurality of] component[deleted: s] (109) of an [deleted: corresponding plurality of] automated passenger conveying device[deleted: s] (101) [deleted: within an automated passenger conveying system], comprising:

downloading a second controller application [deleted: to the plurality of components][deleted: ][deleted: (109)] in response to a [deleted: plurality of corresponding] software compatibility check[deleted: s] (312);

scheduling a switchover[deleted: s] (344) [deleted: for each of the plurality of automated passenger conveying devices (101)] in response to the downloading of the second controller application;

disabling the [deleted: plurality of] automated passenger conveying device[deleted: s] (101) from providing service; performing the [deleted: plurality of] switchover[deleted: s] (344) from the first controller application to the second controller application;

performing a post-switchover inspection[deleted: s] (352) of the second controller application that determines whether [deleted: each of] the [deleted: plurality of] automated passenger conveying device[deleted: s] (101) works properly while the second controller application is active;

enabling [deleted: each of] the [deleted: plurality of] automated passenger conveying device[deleted: s] (101) to provide the service when the post-switchover inspection[deleted: s] (352) of the second controller application determines that [deleted: each of] the automated passenger conveying device[deleted: s] (101) works properly;

sending to a network monitoring system (303) a message (354) indicating that a switchover (344) was completed when the corresponding post-switchover inspection (352) of the second controller application determines that the automated passenger conveying device (101) works properly; and

sending a notification to a user indicating that a switchover (344) was not completed when the corresponding post-switchover inspection (352) of the second controller application determines that the automated passenger conveying device (101) does not work properly[deleted: ;]

[deleted: wherein the switchovers (344) are coordinated such that one of the plurality of automated passenger conveying devices (101) is taken out of service at a time]."

X. Claim 1 of auxiliary request 6 reads as follows (amendments vis-à-vis claim 1 of the auxiliary request 3 indicated by the board):

"A method for automatic updating of a first controller application in a plurality of components (109) of a corresponding plurality of automated passenger conveying devices (101) within an automated passenger conveying system, comprising:

downloading a second controller application to the plurality of components (109) in response to a plurality of corresponding software compatibility checks (312);

scheduling switchovers (344) for each of the plurality of automated passenger conveying devices (101) in response to the downloading of the second controller application, comprising determining a time of day when each automated passenger conveying device (101) is least active and slotting the switchover for that time;

disabling the plurality of automated passenger conveying devices (101) from providing service; performing the plurality of switchovers (344) from the first controller application to the second controller application;

performing post-switchover inspections (352) of the second controller application that determine whether each of the plurality of automated passenger conveying devices (101) works properly while the second controller application is active; and

enabling each of the plurality of automated passenger conveying devices (101) to provide the service when the post-switchover inspections (352) of the second controller application determine that each of the automated passenger conveying devices (101) works properly

wherein the switchovers (344) are coordinated such that one of the plurality of automated passenger conveying devices (101) is taken out of service at a time."

XI. Claim 1 of auxiliary requests 7 and 8 differs from claim 1 of auxiliary requests 6 and 1, respectively, in that the following clause has been added:

"sending to a network monitoring system (303) a message (354) indicating that a switchover (344) was completed when the corresponding

post-switchover inspection (352) of the second controller application determines that the automated passenger conveying device (101) works properly; and

sending a notification to a user indicating that a switchover (344) was not completed when the corresponding post-switchover inspection (352) of the second controller application determines that the automated passenger conveying device (101) does not work properly;".

XII. Claim 1 of corrected auxiliary requests 9 differs from claim 1 of auxiliary request 6 in that the "scheduling switchovers" step now includes the phrase:

"comprising determining a time of day when [deleted: each] the automated passenger conveying [deleted: device] system [deleted: (101)] is least active and slotting the switchover for that time".

XIII. Claim 1 of corrected auxiliary requests 10 reads as follows:

"A method for automatic updating of a first controller application in a plurality of components (109) of a corresponding plurality of automated passenger conveying devices (101) within an automated passenger conveying system, comprising:

downloading a second controller application to the plurality of components (109) in response to a plurality of corresponding software compatibility checks (312);

scheduling switchovers (344) for each of the plurality of automated passenger conveying devices (101) in response to the downloading of the second controller application, comprising determining a time of day when [deleted: each] the automated passenger conveying system is least active and slotting the switchover for that time;

disabling the plurality of automated passenger conveying devices (101) from providing service;

performing the plurality of switchovers (344) from the first controller application to the second controller application;

performing post-switchover inspections (352) of the second controller application that determine whether each of the plurality of automated passenger conveying devices (101) works properly while the second controller application is active;

enabling each of the plurality of automated passenger conveying devices (101) to provide the service when the post-switchover inspections (352) of the second controller application determine that each of the automated passenger conveying devices (101) works properly;

sending to a network monitoring system (303) a message (354) indicating that a switchover (344) was completed when the corresponding postswitchover inspection (352) of the second controller application determines that the automated passenger conveying device (101) works properly; and

sending a notification to a user indicating that a switchover (344) was not completed when the corresponding post-switchover inspection (352) of the second controller application determines that the automated passenger conveying device (101) does not work properly;

wherein the switchovers (344) are coordinated such that one of the plurality of automated passenger conveying devices (101) is taken out of service at a time."

XIV. Finally, claim 1 of auxiliary request 11 differs from claim 1 of auxiliary request 2 in that the following clause has been added at the end:

"sending to a network monitoring system (303) a message (354) indicating that a switchover (344) was completed when the corresponding

post-switchover inspection (352) of the second controller application determines that the automated passenger conveying device (101) works properly; and

sending a notification to a user indicating that a switchover (344) was not completed when the corresponding post-switchover inspection (352) of the second controller application determines that the automated passenger conveying device (101) does not work properly."

1. Main request (patent as granted)

1.1 Claim 1 of the main request includes the following limiting features (board's labelling):

F1 A method for automatic updating of a first controller application in a component of an automated passenger conveying device, comprising:

F2 downloading a second controller application in response to a software compatibility check;

F3 scheduling a switchover in response to the downloading of the second controller application;

F4 disabling the automated passenger conveying device from providing service;

F5 performing the switchover from the first controller application to the second controller application;

F6 performing a post-switchover inspection of the second controller application that determines whether the automated passenger conveying device works properly while the second controller application is active;

F7 enabling the automated passenger conveying device to provide the service when the post-switchover inspection of the second controller application determines that the automated passenger conveying device works properly.

1.2 Interpretation of features F2 and F3

1.2.1 As to the phrase "in response to a software compatibility check" according to feature F2, the proprietor argued that the claimed method related to "automatic updating". Hence, the "software compatibility check" had likewise to be performed automatically.

The board is not convinced by this argument, since claim 1 does not specify the "software compatibility check" as a distinct method step. Only the "downloading" is specified as a separate method step and is thus required to be performed automatically. Conversely, the "compatibility check" is merely mentioned as a preceding triggering event and could thus also have been performed by a device upon request or even manually by a person. It is even not derivable from the wording of claim 1 which unit is supposed to actually perform this software compatibility check (e.g. by an on-site or off-site device, etc.). In other words, as the "compatibility check" is not further specified, this term comprises even the most superficial ways of checking whether the software might be compatible (whatever "compatibility" may imply in this context).

1.2.2 Having regard to feature F3, the board considers that "scheduling a switchover" may be interpreted simply as triggering a mechanism which ensures any type of

time-based initiation of the respective "switchover".

1.3 Novelty (Article 54 EPC)

1.3.1 With respect to feature F2, the board concurs with the proprietor that, in the system of document E1, the available memory size of the "remote maintenance device 11" does not correlate with the memory size of the "FE-ROM 5" and may thus not serve as an indication as to whether the control program being received may indeed be compatible with the "elevator control device". The respective considerations of the opponent and the opposition division are not convincing. However, as conceded by the proprietor itself, it is always implied that an update program is specifically selected for updating the control program. Thus, at least a rough or generic "software compatibility check" is always implied. Consequently, the board considers that only a sub-feature of feature F2, i.e. that the "downloading" step is being performed "in response to" this compatibility check, is not directly and unambiguously disclosed by document E1. For the sake of completeness, it is added that basic types of automatic software compatibility checks would have been notoriously known to the skilled person at the patent's priority date, like comparing file names and version numbers.

1.3.2 As to feature F3, the proprietor argued that document E1 provided in paragraphs [0035] and [0048] two distinct embodiments. In the first of these embodiments, the "quiet state" was determined, but no scheduling was performed. On the other hand, the second embodiment related to scheduling which was however not "in response to" downloading. Thus, no matter which paragraph was to be considered, at least a part of feature F3 constituted another difference over the disclosure of document E1.

The board concurs with the opponent that the "downloading" step of claim 1 is not limited to the downloading being completed. The phrase "in response to the downloading" thus also comprises the situation where the downloading is merely initiated but not yet completed. This is however already disclosed in paragraph [0047], last sentence, of document E1. Consequently, the board concurs with the opponent that feature F3 is anticipated by the embodiment described in paragraphs [0047] and [0048] of E1. On the other hand, since the wording of claim 1 allows for a broader interpretation than adopted by the proprietor, the proprietor's argument that document E1 failed to disclose the "in response to" aspect of feature F3 is not persuasive.

1.3.3 Lastly, with respect to feature F5, the board concurs with the opponent that the term "switchover" used in claim 1 allows for a broad interpretation, including replacing the old program with the new program. However, it has been accepted by the proprietor that the latter is already disclosed in document E1 (see statement of grounds of appeal, section 3.2.2). Thus, the board holds that feature F5 is also anticipated by document E1.

1.3.4 In view of the above, the subject-matter of claim 1 is novel and differs from the disclosure of document E1 merely in that the "downloading" is performed "in response to" a software compatibility check (i.e. feature F2).

1.4 Inventive step (Article 56 EPC)

1.4.1 The proprietor submitted, as regards the above distinguishing feature, that the "second controller application" being downloaded "in response to" the check ensured that the compatibility check was recent and thus likely to be accurate when the "downloading" happened, thereby improving reliability of the underlying system.

1.4.2 The board is not convinced by this argument, since it fails to perceive how a compatibility check for a particular piece of software may become outdated. Either the (same) piece of software is compatible with a (same) particular device or it is not. In addition, the phrase "in response to" does not imply any concrete time period, so that any "recent" compatibility check, let alone an "improved system reliability", remains pure speculation.

1.4.3 Rather, the board agrees with the opposition division that the distinguishing feature constitutes a trivial technical design option. The board holds that the skilled person would have indeed considered initiating the "automatic updating process" without undue delay once compatibility of the new software version with the device was established. Thereby, the skilled person would have arrived at the subject-matter of claim 1 without employing inventive skills.

1.5 In view of the above, the board endorses the opposition division's conclusion that the main request is not allowable under Article 56 EPC.

2. Auxiliary request 1 - inventive step (Article 56 EPC)

2.1 Claim 1 of auxiliary request 1 further specifies that (board's emphasis):

F3' the "scheduling" step comprises the step of determining a time of day when the automated passenger conveying device is least active and slotting the switchover for that time.

2.2 The board concurs with the opposition division that added feature F3' is not anticipated by the cited embodiment of document E1.

2.3 As to the technical effect of this distinguishing feature, the opposition division took the view that the "least active" determination performed during the "scheduling" step ensured that the latest information about the state of activity of the claimed conveying devices were taken into account and considered the associated objective technical problem to be "improving certainty of the update of the component of the passenger conveying device" (cf. Reasons 8.2.2).

The board disagrees. The question whether the "latest information" may indeed be retrieved at the time of scheduling mainly (or even exclusively) depends on the source of the relevant information from which the "least active" time slots for a switchover may actually be retrieved. Thus, the above technical effect and the formulated objective problem is based on mere speculation.

2.4 The board is also not convinced by the proprietor's argument that feature F3' contributed to the technical effect of "improving the reliability of the updating process". This was because elevator passengers could, for instance, disrupt the updating process. Notably, the "determining" of a time of day does not necessarily contribute to such an effect, since - in view of the lack of any temporal sequence between the "disabling" step (i.e. feature F4) and the remaining method steps of claim 1 - the elevator could well be "disabled" before the actual "update" is performed. Thus, the updating process would then be entirely unaffected by the presence of potential passengers in the claimed conveying devices.

2.5 In view of the above, feature F3' constitutes, at most, one of equally likely and feasible alternatives for scheduling the respective "switchover". Thus, it may not contribute to an inventive step.

2.6 At any rate, the board notes that paragraphs [0035] and [0036] of document E1 already disclose the use of the date and the time for determining whether an elevator is in a "quiet state", as argued by the opponent. The board also agrees with the opponent that the term "least active" of claim 1 is vague and certainly not limited to the building being closed (see paragraph [0048] of the opposed patent). Hence, the "quiet state" mentioned in paragraphs [0035] and [0036] of document E1 falls well within the broad term "least active" as claimed.

2.7 Hence, the subject-matter of claim 1 of auxiliary request 1 does not involve an inventive step over document E1 for the same reasons as set out for claim 1 of the main request in point 1.4 above.

2.8 Hence, auxiliary request 1 is not allowable under Article 56 EPC either.

3. Auxiliary request 2 - admittance

3.1 The claim set according to auxiliary request 2 was filed for the first time with the proprietor's statement of grounds of appeal. Its admittance is therefore governed by all relevant parts of Article 12 RPBA.

3.2 The proprietor argued that the underlying amendments (cf. point VI above) had been introduced in response to the opponent's objection under Article 123(2) EPC, raised for the first time during the oral proceedings before the opposition division.

3.3 Regardless of this, the board considers that the respective amendments are evidently not apt to address the issue of inventive step (Article 56 EPC). Hence, this auxiliary request is not suitable to address all the issues which led to the decision under appeal within the meaning of Article 12(4), last sentence, RPBA. At the oral proceedings before the board, no further counter-arguments were provided in that regard.

3.4 In consequence, the board decided not to admit auxiliary request 2 into the appeal proceedings.

4. Auxiliary requests 3 to 8 - admittance

4.1 Claim 1 of auxiliary requests 3 to 8 further specifies that (board's emphasis):

F8 the claimed method is applied to a plurality of automated passenger conveying devices within an automated passenger conveying system

[auxiliary requests 3, 4, 6 and 7]

F9 the switchovers are coordinated such that one of the plurality of automated passenger conveying devices is taken out of service at a time [auxiliary requests 3, 4 and 6]

F10 a message is sent to a network monitoring system, indicating that a switchover was completed when the corresponding post-switchover inspection of the second controller application determines that the automated passenger conveying device works properly, and a notification is sent to a user indicating that a switchover was not completed when the corresponding post-switchover inspection of the second controller application determines that the automated passenger conveying device does not work properly [auxiliary requests 4, 5, 7 and 8].

4.2 Auxiliary requests 3 to 8 were filed for the first time during the opposition proceedings (then labelled as "auxiliary requests 2 to 7"). However, the opposition division did not decide upon them because a

higher-ranking claim request had already been found allowable. Therefore, they represent "carry-over requests". Since the decision under appeal was thus not based on those requests, they would, on the face of it, constitute "amendments" of the proprietor's case within the meaning of Article 12(2) and (4) RPBA. However, pursuant to Article 12(4), first sentence, RPBA, such qualification as "amendments" applies only

"unless the party demonstrates that this part was admissibly raised and maintained in the proceedings leading to the decision under appeal" [board's emphasis].

4.3 To decide whether this exemption applies here, in which case auxiliary requests 3 to 8 would necessarily be part of the appeal proceedings, or whether they are indeed "amendments", in which case their forming part of these proceedings would be a discretionary matter for the board, requires in particular an interpretation and application of the terms "demonstrates", "admissibly raised" and "maintained".

4.4 Despite some leniency in this respect in the early jurisprudence (cf. T 221/20, T 42/20 and T 476/21), the ordinary meaning of "demonstrates" must be that, as a general rule, the party making a submission that would, on the face of it, constitute an "amendment" bears the burden of showing that it was "admissibly raised and maintained" in the proceedings leading to the decision under appeal. The lawmakers' idea was obviously not to put ex officio responsibilities on the boards and/or expect them to assume an investigative role, learn every detail of the first-instance proceedings, identify and track claim requests to their source, and understand why they were filed. The onus is no doubt on the amending party.

4.5 In its statement of grounds of appeal, the proprietor merely submitted that auxiliary requests 3 to 8 corresponded to specific claim requests filed during the opposition proceedings, and referred to the comments made on those requests in the first-instance proceedings. Later, in its reply to the board's communication under Article 15(1) RPBA, in which the board noted that the proprietor had not demonstrated that auxiliary requests 3 to 8 had been "admissibly raised and maintained", the proprietor argued that neither in Article 12(4) RPBA nor elsewhere in the RPBA was it laid down when it must be demonstrated that submissions not meeting the requirements of Article 12(2) RPBA were admissibly raised and maintained. This begs the question of whether there is any time requirement for the "demonstration" that a submission was "admissibly raised and maintained".

4.6 The board acknowledges that Article 12(4) RPBA itself does not provide a time by which it must be demonstrated that the respective submission was "admissibly raised and maintained". However, auxiliary requests 3 to 8 were submitted with a statement of grounds of appeal that lacked any indication that they were "admissibly raised and maintained" in the opposition proceedings. Since the statement did not contain the proprietor's complete appeal case within the meaning of Article 12(3) RPBA, the board has discretion not to admit such subsequent submissions (Article 12(5) RPBA). In addition, there are increasingly demanding criteria for admitting new submissions made after the filing of the statement of grounds of appeal and the written reply (cf. Article 13(1) and (2) RPBA). In this sense there are, at least in practice, temporal restraints on the "demonstration" required under Article 12(4), first sentence, RPBA.

4.7 The proprietor asserted, in its reply to the board's communication under Article 15(1) RPBA, inter alia, that its "maintenance" of auxiliary requests 3 to 8 was self-evident from the minutes of the oral proceedings before the opposition division.

4.8 Those minutes in fact form part of the basis of these appeal proceedings, whether or not the proprietor invoked them (cf. Article 12(1)(a) RPBA). According to point 17 of these minutes, in the time between the announcement of the conclusion that a higher-ranking claim request was found allowable and the announcement of the decision, the proprietor expressly maintained auxiliary requests 3 to 8 (then labelled as "auxiliary requests 2 to 7"). In other words, those requests were manifestly maintained until the opposition division took its decision.

4.9 Irrespective of the admittance of the proprietor's late submissions to demonstrate maintenance of the auxiliary requests (cf. point 4.6 above), and as an exemption from the general rule that the onus lies with the party, the board cannot ask more of the proprietor in this respect than what is already obvious from said minutes - which a Board must always read. The circumstances of the present case do not warrant any statements as to possible further exemptions from said general rule.

4.10 The proprietor also argued, in its reply to the board's communication under Article 15(1) RPBA and relevant to the matter of demonstrating that auxiliary requests 3 to 8 were "admissibly raised" in the opposition proceedings, that the requests were "entirely validly filed" six weeks in advance of the final date for making submissions ahead of the oral proceedings under Rule 116 EPC. However, what the proprietor means by the unsubstantiated phrase "entirely validly filed" is obscure, and the rest of the arguments in that reply are rather relevant to the demonstration of maintenance (i.e. a matter already resolved above).

4.11 In support of its view, the proprietor invoked two decisions of the Boards of Appeal. In the proprietor's view, decisions T 42/20 (Reasons 4.2) and T 476/21 (Reasons 7.1 to 7.3) confirmed that auxiliary requests which were "admissibly raised and maintained" in the first-instance proceedings but not considered in the first-instance decision were not "amendments", with no discussion over how or when this was demonstrated as required by Article 12(4), first sentence, RPBA.

4.12 Given the proprietor's view, and the silence in the RPBA and their explanatory remarks as to the meaning of "admissibly raised", the board finds it helpful, in the context of claim amendments, to establish what the actual requirements might be for a party's demonstration that submissions were indeed "admissibly raised".

4.13 In that regard, one viable approach could be that a Board decides whether the opposition division should have admitted the respective claim request into the opposition proceedings, had a decision on admittance been required (see e.g. T 364/20, Reasons 7). This would in turn mean that a Board - at least in part - should slip into the shoes of the opposition division. It would then have to infer, from the Board's perspective, how the opposition division should have exercised its discretion on the basis of the applicable procedural basis, e.g. in view of the current Guidelines for Examination, but also leniently applying the RPBA (see T 364/20, Reasons 7.2.10, last sentence). However, one of the possible consequences of that approach could arguably be that the boards would have to closely monitor the currently applicable Guidelines to derive guidance as to how the respective opposition division should have exercised discretion generally conferred by Article 123(1) EPC in conjunction with Rule 81(3) EPC in inter partes proceedings (cf. R 6/19, Reasons 6 and 7). For the boards, the subject of such an approach could virtually correspond to a "moving target", possibly leading to similar cases being treated differently, depending on the amendments made to the Guidelines over the years. This approach also fails to convince this board since the Guidelines are not binding on the Boards and since the RPBA are approved and adopted specifically to govern the proceedings before the Boards.

4.14 This board, however, proposes another approach, namely that of defining minimum requirements for the demonstration of "admissibly raised" which could be more conducive to legal certainty and fairness in that regard, especially in opposition appeal proceedings. The board considers that claim requests which were already filed during the opposition proceedings and which did not belong to the basis of the decision under appeal in the above-mentioned sense (i.e. "carry-over requests") may indeed be regarded as "admissibly raised" under the minimum requirements that the party shows

(1) that they were filed in due time, typically before expiry of the time limit set by the opposition division under Rule 116(1) and (2) EPC, and

(2) that it was made clear, explicitly or by way of unambiguous implication, for which purpose they were filed, i.e. which objections raised by the other party or the opposition division they try to overcome and how this is actually achieved.

4.15 Consequently, the board does not endorse the conclusions drawn in decisions T 42/20 and T 476/21, cited by the proprietor, where merely the timing aspect was considered by the competent boards (cf. T 42/20, Reasons 4.2 and T 476/21, Reasons 7.2 and 7.3).

4.16 On the other hand, the present board also does not subscribe to the test, with elaborate criteria, proposed by the competent board in case T 1800/20. According to that decision - besides the timing

aspect - questions relating to (i) the suitability of the submission to overcome the objections raised against a higher-ranking claim requests, (ii) whether the submission gives rise to new objections and (iii) the suitability of the submission to be part of a convergent development of the first-instance proceedings should be considered in the assessment whether submissions were "admissibly raised" (see Reasons 3.4, items a) to d)). Taking such additional criteria into account when assessing the concept of

"admissibly raised" and thus the question whether there is, at all, any discretion for a Board not to admit a party's submission into the appeal proceedings would compellingly lead to a significant overlap with the codified criteria to be used by the Boards once they indeed have such a discretion (see e.g. Article 13(1), last sentence, RPBA: "the suitability of the amendment to resolve the issues [...]", "whether the party has demonstrated that any such amendment, prima facie, overcomes the issues raised [...] and does not give rise to new objections"). Such an overlap could also lead to rather harsh and possibly unfair situations for the parties, without much gain for legal certainty - especially when considering that claim amendments made to address different objections raised (e.g. removing features to address added subject-matter and adding features to address novelty or inventive step) could in some cases necessarily lead to diverging claim requests at the outset of appeal proceedings.

4.17 In the present case, regardless of whether the proprietor's submission made only in its reply to the board's communication under Article 15(1) RPBA that auxiliary requests 3 to 8 were in fact filed within the time limit of Rule 116(1) EPC can be considered to be substantiated on time (cf. point 4.6 above), the proprietor has failed to clearly indicate for what purpose they were filed, i.e. how the objections (for example added subject-matter, insufficiency of disclosure, lack of novelty and/or inventive step here) were concretely addressed and why they would be overcome. In particular, in the statement of grounds of appeal, the proprietor referred to the arguments provided in its letter dated 28 May 2021, accompanying the first submission of these auxiliary requests. Therein, it was notably not stated what respective technical problem was solved, or even what technical effect was caused, by the features added in claim 1 of each of the auxiliary requests. With these crucial elements for the assessment of inventive step missing, the onus to make factual submissions relevant to the application of the problem-solution approach in order to determine whether inventive step is to be acknowledged would lie entirely on the board, which is however not its role but the responsibility of the party. The proprietor's late sweeping statement that auxiliary requests 3 to 8 were "entirely validly filed" would obviously not suffice, even if they were to be admitted. In other words, the proprietor has not discharged its burden to demonstrate that these requests were "admissibly raised". Consequently, the exemption is not applicable, and auxiliary requests 3 to 8 indeed constitute "amendments" within the meaning of Article 12(4), first sentence, RPBA. Whether these amendments may be admitted into the appeal proceedings is thus a matter of the board's discretion (Article 12(4), second sentence, RPBA).

4.18 In line with the considerations set out in point 4.17 above, the board concurred with the opponent that the proprietor failed to sufficiently indicate why these auxiliary requests overcame the raised objections. The board thus concluded that the proprietor's pleadings did not comply with the requirement of Article 12(4), third and fourth sentences, RPBA ("The party shall [...] provide reasons for submitting [an amendment] in the appeal proceedings [...] and provide reasons why the amendment overcomes the objections raised.").

In addition, alternately adding and/or omitting features, i.e. features F3', F8, F9 and F10, throughout those auxiliary requests even more obfuscates the real purpose of their filing. This, at the same time, gives rise to "divergent" claim requests which may arguably increase the procedural and substantive complexity as regards the assessment of their compliance with the requirements of the EPC. Even more so when considering that at least features F3' and F9, i.e. performing the switchover on the basis of the "least active" time of day and taking one of the conveying devices out of service at a time, are evidently taken from the patent description rather than from the claims as granted, possibly also leading to a "fresh case".

4.19 Hence, none of auxiliary requests 3 to 8 was admitted into the appeal proceedings (Article 12(4) RPBA).

5. Auxiliary requests 9, 10 and 11 - admittance

5.1 With its reply to the board's communication under Article 15(1) RPBA, the proprietor filed for the first time present auxiliary requests 9 and 10 and submitted that they were "corrected versions" of the former auxiliary requests 9 and 10 as filed with the statement of grounds of appeal. In those requests, the previous reference to "each automated passenger conveying system" in the independent claims was corrected to "the automated passenger conveying system". This correction was immediately apparent because there was only one "automated passenger conveying system" previously introduced into the claims.

5.2 Although no explicit request for correction under Rule 139 EPC was made, the board understands the above submission as a request for correction under Rule 139, second sentence, EPC. This was also confirmed by the proprietor at the hearing before the board. In that regard, the board concurs with the proprietor that the claims persistently make reference to a single "system", in line with the patent description. It is thus evident that nothing else could have been meant. Hence, the request for correction of auxiliary requests 9 and 10 under Rule 139, second sentence, EPC is to be granted. Due to the ex tunc effect of such a correction, the admittance of these requests is governed by Article 12 RPBA (rather than by Article 13 RPBA).

5.3 Auxiliary request 11 was filed for the first time with the proprietor's statement of grounds of appeal. Its admittance is thus also regulated by Article 12 RPBA.

5.4 As to the admittance of auxiliary requests 9 and 11, the board considers that the proprietor failed to provide any reasoning as to how these requests were addressing all the relevant issues. Rather, the proprietor merely referred to the reasons brought forward with respect to auxiliary request 2, which were found not to be convincing (see point 3.3 above). Thus, auxiliary requests 9 and 11 were likewise not admitted into the appeal proceedings (Article 12(4) RPBA).

5.5 As to the admittance of auxiliary request 10, the board notes that this claim request comprises the amendments according to all higher-ranking requests. Hence, it is the most restricted claim request on file. Therefore, out of the auxiliary requests on file, it constitutes the claim request which is most suited to overcome the issues raised in the proceedings, in particular the issue of inventive step. Therefore, the board exercised its discretion to admit the (corrected) auxiliary request 10 into the appeal proceedings (Article 12(4) RPBA).

6. Auxiliary request 10 - inventive step (Article 56 EPC)

6.1 Claim 1 of auxiliary request 10 comprises features F1 to F10 and F3' (cf. points 1.1, 2.1 and 4.1 above).

6.2 The board considers that, besides features F2 and F3' (cf. points 1.3.4 and 2.2 above), also features F8, F9 and F10 are not directly and unambiguously disclosed in document E1.

6.3 As to features F8 and F9, i.e. the application of the claimed method to a plurality of automated passenger conveying devices and taking one of the plurality of those devices out of service at a time, these features yield the technical effect that, during a software update, service disruptions of the elevator system made up of several conveying devices are kept as low as possible. The associated objective partial problem may thus be formulated as "how to adapt the method of document E1 to a multi-elevator system such that, during a software update, service disruptions are kept as low as possible".

6.4 With respect to feature F10, the board holds that the technical effect caused by this additional feature is the provision of feedback about the result of the software update. The objective partial problem lies therefore in "how to provide feedback about the result of the software update in the system of document E1".

6.5 Hence, features F8 and F9, on the one hand, and feature F10, on the other hand, are directed to different partial problems (i.e. avoiding disruptions; providing feedback) and thus do not cause a combined, synergistic technical effect. Instead, they constitute a juxtaposition of features. Therefore, the assessment of inventive step can be conducted separately for those distinguishing features.

6.6 As regards features F8 and F9, the skilled person would have been well aware, at the patent's priority date, that elevator systems comprising several elevators were widely known. In that context, the skilled person would also have recognised the need to reduce disruptions during a software update, especially for multiple elevators, and that this may be achieved by performing the respective updating steps in sequence (rather than in parallel). Hence, the mere adaptation of the method steps according to features F1 to F7 and F3' to a plurality of such devices (i.e. performing the software update simply for several elevators and the scheduling for all of them, etc.) and the implementation measure as to taking out of service only one of the conveying devices at a certain point in time, would have been obvious to the skilled person when tasked with the underlying objective problem.

6.7 As regards feature F10, document E1 already discloses, in paragraphs [0053] and [0054], an automatic diagnosis operation and teaches that its result is transmitted to a "center terminal device". Since a terminal is typically operated by a user, transmitting the feedback to the terminal implies also providing it to a user. Thus, in view of the teaching of document E1, sending a message to such a "center terminal device" in the event that a switchover was successful, while sending a notification to a user (e.g. to the operator of an elevator system) in the event that a switchover was not successful falls within the routine practise and ordinary competences of the skilled person faced with the problem of providing some feedback on events such as software updates.

6.8 In view of the above, auxiliary request 10 is not allowable under Article 56 EPC either.

7. Consequently, none of the proprietor's pending claim requests is allowable. Thus, the opposed patent has to be revoked.

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The decision under appeal is set aside.

2. The patent is revoked.

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