T 1465/23 (Isolated islands of cryptography/GN HEARING) of 24.06.2025
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:2025:T146523.20250624
- Date of decision
- 24 June 2025
- Case number
- T 1465/23
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- 15175138.5
- 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 Article 056 EPC
- Application title
- Hearing device and method of hearing device communication
- Applicant name
- GN Hearing A/S
- Opponent name
- Oticon A/S
- Board
- 3.5.05
- Headnote
- -
- Relevant legal provisions
- European Patent Convention Art 100(a)European Patent Convention Art 111(1)European Patent Convention Art 112(1)(a)European Patent Convention Art 56Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 11
- Keywords
- Claim construction - description and drawings "consulted" and "referred to" for defining the skilled reader of a claim
Inventive step - main and auxiliary requests (no): no credible technical effect over the whole scope claimed; concept of "substantially over the whole scope claimed" not followed; distinguishing features relate to arbitrary and non-functional modifications; reference made to UPC_CFI_1/2023, Central Division Munich
Remittal - (no): no "special reasons"
Referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal - (no): questions on the problem-solution approach and the general applicability of G 1/19 and G 2/21 can be answered on the basis of the EPC and the existing jurisprudence - Catchword
- If there is no technical effect that is credibly derivable from the wording of a claim on the basis of its distinguishing features, it is usually unnecessary to - artificially - formulate an (unsolved) objective technical problem, such as finding an "alternative way to achieve a (non-existent) technical effect".
In such cases, the distinguishing features simply constitute arbitrary or non-functional modifications of the available prior art which cannot involve an inventive step within the meaning of Article 56 EPC (see points 2.7 and 3.3.3 of the Reasons).
Order
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The request for a referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal is refused.
2. The decision under appeal is set aside.
3. The patent is revoked.