T 1109/24 (Incremental search/ADEIA GUIDES) of 05.09.2025
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:2025:T110924.20250905
- Date of decision
- 5 September 2025
- Case number
- T 1109/24
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- 16173199.7
- IPC class
- G06F 3/023G06F 17/27G06F 17/30
- Language of proceedings
- English
- Distribution
- No distribution (D)
- Download
- Decision in English
- OJ versions
- No OJ links found
- Other decisions for this case
- -
- Abstracts for this decision
- -
- Application title
- System and method for finding desired results by incremental search using an ambiguous keypad with the input containing orthographic and typographic errors
- Applicant name
- Adeia Guides Inc.
- Opponent name
- -
- Board
- 3.5.07
- Headnote
- -
- Relevant legal provisions
- European Patent Convention Art 111(1)European Patent Convention Art 123(2)European Patent Convention Art 56European Patent Convention Art 76(1)European Patent Convention Art 84
- Keywords
- Claims - clarity (yes)
Amendments - added subject-matter (no)
Amendment after expiry of period in R. 100(2) EPC communication - exceptional circumstances (yes)
Inventive step - after amendment
Inventive step - over prior art cited in decision (yes)
Inventive step - over prior art cited in application (not decided)
Remittal - special reasons for remittal (yes) - Catchword
- Although the "could" question in the could-would approach may often require little or no justification, it cannot be ignored in cases where there is not self-evidently a realistic path or "workable route" from the starting point to the claimed invention. That is the case if the distinguishing features cannot reasonably be combined with the closest prior art to obtain the claimed invention.
In such a situation, the invention is not rendered obvious by that prior art and the question whether the distinguishing features achieve a technical effect over the closest prior art is essentially meaningless. - Cited cases
- T 0667/91
- Citing cases
- -
Order
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The decision under appeal is set aside.
2. The case is remitted to the examining division for further prosecution.