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 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 0033/99 04-10-2001
Facebook X Linkedin Email

T 0033/99 04-10-2001

European Case Law Identifier
ECLI:EP:BA:2001:T003399.20011004
Date of decision
04 October 2001
Case number
T 0033/99
Petition for review of
-
Application number
92202436.9
IPC class
B65B 7/28
Language of proceedings
EN
Distribution
NO DISTRIBUTION (D)

Download and more information:

Decision in EN 38.54 KB
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the European Patent Register
Bibliographic information is available in:
EN
Versions
Unpublished
Application title

Method and apparatus for closing a packing

Applicant name
METALTECH V.O.F
Opponent name
Alcan Deutschland GmbH
Board
3.2.04
Headnote
-
Relevant legal provisions
European Patent Convention Art 55(1)(a) 1973
European Patent Convention Art 54 1973
European Patent Convention Art 111(1) 1973
Keywords

Evident abuse - no

Public prior use - yes

Novelty - first auxiliary request - yes

Remittal to first instance

Catchword
-
Cited decisions
G 0003/98
G 0002/99
T 0472/92
Citing decisions
-

I. The opposition division's decision to revoke European patent No. 0 526 950 (resulting from European patent application number 92 202 436.9 filed on 6 August 1992 with a priority date of 7 August 1991) was posted on 27. October 1998.

On 6 January 1999 the patentee filed an appeal against this decision and paid the appeal fee, filing the statement of grounds on 8 March 1999.

II. The documents that played a role in the appeal proceedings

D2: EP-A-0 209 890

D6: Brochure "OHLER® Packaging machines - Hand closing machine Type D", Alcan Deutschland GmbH, marked "9/88" (filed by the respondent as annex HEP 6 to the notice of opposition)

D7: Instruction sheet "OHLER® Handverschließgerät Type D3", Alcan Deutschland GmbH, no date (filed by the respondent as annex HEP 7)

D8: Bill from Meinerzhagener Druck und Verlagshaus to Alcan Deutschland GmbH dated 27.12.90 for printing 550 copies of D7 (submitted by respondent as annex HEP 8)

D9: Brochure "OHLER® Verpackungs-Anlagen - Handverschließgerät Type D", Alcan Deutschland GmbH, marked "Stand: 9/88"

D10: Brochure "OHLER® Verpackungs-Anlagen - Handverschließgerät Type D 5.2", Alcan Deutschland GmbH, not prior art

III. The opposition division revoked the patent after finding an allegation of public prior use proven, namely that in April 1991 on the CEBAL stand at the MACROPAK 91 packaging fair at Utrecht in the Netherlands, Mr Herber showed Mr Heitkamp an apparatus as shown in the patent without obliging Mr Heitkamp to secrecy.

The appellant (patentee) maintained that if a visitor to the fair had tried to use the apparatus or if Mr Herber had demonstrated it, then this would have been an evident abuse in relation to the patentee and should not be taken into account since the patent's priority date of 7 August 1991 was less than six months after the packaging fair (Article 55(1)(a) EPC).

The opposition division considered that the period of six months referred to in Article 55(1) EPC applied to the actual filing date not the priority date and that, since the filing date of 6 August 1992 was more than six months after the packaging fair, Article 55(1)(a) EPC could not be applicable.

While this was disputed by the appellant in the statement of grounds of appeal, the board pointed out in its communication of 29 June 2001 that the Enlarged Board of Appeal decisions G 3/98 (OJ EPO, 2001, 062) and G 2/99 (OJ EPO, 2001, 083) had found that the relevant date was indeed the date of the actual filing of the European patent application and not the date of priority. The board thus considered that evident abuse could not be a defence in the present case.

On 4 October 2001 oral proceedings took place before the board during which the appellant stated that it would not present any further arguments on evident abuse.

IV. During these oral proceedings the appellant withdrew its previous requests that the witness Mr Heitkamp be heard on oath by a competent German court and that oral evidence relied upon in the appeal proceedings be considered only to the extent given under oath.

V. A main request and four auxiliary requests from the appellant were on file at the start of the oral proceedings on 4 October 2001.

The main request was for the patent as granted, the main claims of which read:

"1. Method for closing a packing (4) consisting of an upper part (3) having a downward hanging edge (16) and a lower part (2) having a protruding flange (15), by placing the upper part (3) on the lower part (2), placing the assembled packing (4) in a closing apparatus (1) having a base (5) with holding means (6) and a closing part (7) moveably arranged with respect thereto, said closing part (7) comprising a pressure plate (8) and a plurality of moveable ring segments (9), and moving the closing part (7) and the base (5) of the closing apparatus towards each other, thus causing the ring segments (9) to move towards each other and fold the downward hanging edge (16) of the upper part (3) around the protruding flange (15) of the lower part (2), characterized in that said ring segments (9) are only moved towards each other after the pressure plate (8) and the base (5) have reached their fully closed, abutting position, in which position the upper part of the packing (4) just makes contact with the pressure plate (8)."

"2. Apparatus (1) for performing the method of claim 1, comprising a base (5) carrying means (6) for holding the packing (4) in a closing position and a closing part (7) moveably arranged with respect thereto, said closing part (7) comprising a pressure plate (8) and a ring (14) consisting of a plurality of ring segments (9) moveable in radial direction substantially parallel to said pressure plate (8) between a release position in which the dimensions in peripheral direction of the ring (14) are greater than those of the packing (4) and a first closing position in which the dimensions in peripheral direction of the ring (14) are smaller than those of the packing (4), and moveable in a direction substantially transversely of said pressure plate (8) between said first closing position and a second closing position in which said packing (4) is pressed close between said ring segments (9) and said pressure plate (8), characterized in that the ring segments (9) are arranged on said closing part (7) such, that they are moveable in said directions when said pressure plate (8) and said base (5) are in their fully closed, abutting position, in which position the upper part of the packing (4) just makes contact with the pressure plate (8)."

VI. The first auxiliary request at the start of the oral proceedings on 4 October 2001 was the auxiliary request of 14 August 1998 based on apparatus claims 1 and 2 filed with the letter of 14 August 1998.

The apparatus of Claim 2 as granted specifies that the apparatus is "for performing the method of claim 1" (i.e. as granted) and so the apparatus has to be such that the ring segments are only moved towards each other after the pressure plate and the base have reached their fully closed, abutting position (see claim 1 as granted, column 5, lines 23 to 26).

In the oral proceedings the board objected that the apparatus claim 1 of this first auxiliary request did not contain the word "only" so that the apparatus was not restricted to providing ring segment movement only after the pressure plate and the base had reached their fully closed, abutting position, and that therefore the scope of protection was extended, contrary to Article 123(3) EPC.

Thereupon the appellant withdrew this first auxiliary request and renumbered the remaining auxiliary requests.

VII. The sole independent claim of the resulting first auxiliary request (the first auxiliary request as submitted in the oral proceedings before the opposition division) reads:

"1. Apparatus (1) for closing a packing (4) consisting of an upper part (3) having a downward hanging edge (16) and a lower part (2) having a protruding flange (15), said closing apparatus (1) comprising a base (5) carrying means (6) for holding the packing (4) in a closing position and a closing part (7) moveably arranged with respect thereto, said closing part (7) comprising a pressure plate (8) and a ring (14) consisting of a plurality of ring segments (9) moveable in radial direction substantially parallel to said pressure plate (8) between a release position in which the dimensions in peripheral direction of the ring (14) are greater than those of the packing (4) and a first closing position in which the dimensions in peripheral direction of the ring (14) are smaller than those of the packing (4), and moveable in a direction substantially transversely of the pressure plate (8) between the first closing position and a second closing position in which said packing (4) is pressed close between said ring segments (9) and said pressure plate (8), said ring segments (9) being arranged on said closing part (7) such that they are moveable in said directions only when said pressure plate (8) and said base (5) are in their fully closed abutting position, in which position the upper part of the packing (4) just makes contact with the pressure plate (8), characterised in that each ring segment (9) is slideably mounted in the pressure plate (8), a spacer member (23) is arranged between each segment (9) and the pressure plate (8), and in that the pressure plate (8) has a plurality of receiving spaces (24) for said spacer members (23), which are arranged such that in the first closing position each spacer member (23) is aligned with a receiving space (24) and is received therein during a movement of its associated ring segment (9) to the second closing position."

VIII. The sole independent claim 1 of the present second auxiliary request (which was the second auxiliary request as submitted in the oral proceedings before the opposition division) specifies inter alia a bridge piece pivotally connected to the lever and to pivot arms.

During the oral proceedings on 4 October 2001 the respondent (opponent) accepted that to see the bridge piece of the apparatus brought to these oral proceedings it would be necessary to remove the cover and that this would have applied also to the apparatus at the MACROPAK 91 packaging fair. However the respondent maintained that a structure similar to this bridge piece was already shown in Figure 2 of D2.

IX. The present third auxiliary request corresponds to auxiliary request E filed with the letter of 4. September 2001 except that the appellant deleted claim 2 thereof. The board had objected that this claim contained previously unclaimed features but, being a dependent claim, could never overcome objections made in the opposition or appeal proceedings against the independent claims and was therefore inappropriate. The board also objected to claim 1 of the request for lack of clarity (Article 84 EPC) and extension of subject-matter (Article 123(2) EPC).

X. The appellant requested that the decision under appeal be set aside and that the patent be maintained on the basis of one of the following:

- main request:

The patent as granted;

- first auxiliary request:

The first auxiliary request as submitted in the oral proceedings before the opposition division;

- second auxiliary request:

The second auxiliary request as submitted in the oral proceedings before the opposition division;

- third auxiliary request:

Claims 1 to 5 as submitted on 4. September 2001 and amended in the oral proceedings before the board of appeal.

The respondent requested the dismissal of the appeal.

1. The appeal is admissible.

2. The alleged public prior use

2.1. Allegedly, in April 1991 on the CEBAL stand at the MACROPAK 91 packaging fair at Utrecht in the Netherlands, Mr Herber showed Mr Heitkamp an apparatus as shown in the patent without obliging Mr Heitkamp to secrecy.

2.2. Evident abuse

The board sees no reason to change its provisional opinion given in the communication of 29 June 2001 concerning evident abuse (see the above section III) and therefore finds that evident abuse cannot be a defence in the present case.

2.3. The appellant doubted the statement of Mr Heitkamp saying he was not neutral and that the only part of testimony that was verifiable by physical evidence was that Mr Heitkamp visited the fair. The appellant objected that the witness first of all maintained before the opposition division that he had no financial interest in the outcome of the opposition (see the minutes of the taking of evidence before the opposition division, page 1, penultimate paragraph) but subsequently admitted that part of his salary was dependent on sales of this hand closing apparatus (see the top of page 7 of said minutes).

2.4. The board points out that it is well established that an employee of one of the parties can be heard as a witness and, even if his evidence might be biased, this does not make his evidence inadmissible but would be a matter to be taken into account when the board considered the evidence (see Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO, 3rd edition 1998, page 328 of the English edition).

2.5. Concerning the financial interest, the respondent explained that the closing apparatuses were provided merely to help sell the packings which were its main interest. Moreover Mr Heitkamp explained that his salary was not wholly dependent on the sale of the closing apparatus (see the top of page 7 of the minutes of the taking of evidence).

2.6. Despite allegedly realising the importance of this apparatus and discussing it with his colleagues (e.g. Mr de Graaf, Mr Vogt and Mr Pawelec) and in various departments of Alcan, Mr Heitkamp did not receive a technical brochure about the apparatus, he took no notes about what he saw and he took no pictures (see the last paragraph of page 7 of the minutes of the taking of evidence). D6 to D10 either concern a different apparatus or are not prior art, so that all that is in effect present as evidence of prior use is Mr Heitkamp's statement.

2.7. However the appellant accepted that an apparatus was present at this fair, and according to the middle of page 1 of the minutes of the oral proceedings before the opposition division "The Patentee admitted that the machine shown at the MACROPAK exhibition is the machine of the patent in question". Moreover, according to the middle of page 2 of said minutes, "The Patentee admitted that the features of independent claims 1 and 2. of the main request are disclosed by the prior public use apparatus."

2.8. Thus it is agreed that the apparatus was at the fair and the board considers that it was there to be looked at and examined, at least to some extent, this being the normal reason for items being at exhibitions. This is furthermore supported by the statement of Mr Heitkamp.

2.9. The appellant, while agreeing that the apparatus was at the fair to be looked at, stated that it was not important how it worked but only what result it achieved. The appellant maintained that Mr Herber showed the immobile apparatus and the closed packing along the lines of "This is our apparatus and this is the quality of the closure". The appellant also stated that the apparatus shown at the fair was only a prototype.

2.10. However, Mr Heitkamp's testimony is part accepted by the appellant and the board sees no particular reason to disbelieve the remainder, in particular since the appellant has not offered any evidence to the contrary.

2.11. Even taking into account that Mr Heitkamp was an employee of the respondent, the board therefore comes to the conclusion that an apparatus in accordance with the granted claim 2 was not only present at the Macropak 91 packaging fair in Utrecht but could also have been seen and handled in its assembled state by a member of the public present at the fair. The respondent has not claimed, nor has Mr Heitkamp testified that the apparatus was dismantled. The board must therefore assume that the apparatus at the fair could only be looked at and worked in a manner showing a visitor its ease of handling and the resulting package. The board therefore only considers those features to have been available to the public which could be seen or detected by a skilled person looking at and handling the apparatus.

3. Main request - novelty

3.1. The apparatus presented to the board at the oral proceedings was the same apparatus as that presented to the opposition division but it is not disputed that it was not the actual apparatus that was exhibited at the fair in 1991. However the apparatus seen by the board helped it to decide what Mr Heitkamp would have been able to see at the fair. It is noted that, at the oral proceedings, the appellant could not point out any differences between, on the one hand, the apparatus presented to the board and, on the other hand, the so-called prototype allegedly present at the fair.

3.2. Mr Heitkamp said in the taking of evidence before the opposition division

- that the stand at the fair was surrounded by a counter on which the apparatus stood (see the second paragraph of page 2 of the minutes of the taking of evidence),

- that he could look at the apparatus from all sides (paragraph 3 of page 3 of said minutes),

- that Mr Herber showed him how the apparatus closed (paragraph 3 of page 3 of said minutes),

- that he himself operated the apparatus by hand to see how it closed (paragraph 3 of page 7 of said minutes), and

- that although he saw a closed packing he could not remember whether a packing was actually closed in this demonstration (lines 3 to 5 on page 5 of said minutes).

3.3. One must remember that Mr Heitkamp was familiar with the prior art "OHLER® Type D hand closing machine" marketed by his company and shown in D6 (the same apparatus is also shown in the undated D7 and in D9).

D6 shows a lid (upper part) having a downward hanging edge placed on a container (lower part) having a full curl rim (protruding flange). The lidded container is placed in the apparatus on a base with angle pieces (holding means) below a closing frame. After having pushed down the frame, the crank handle is rotated to close the container by pressing the lid rim around the full curl and the shoulder of the container.

3.4. Thus when Mr Heitkamp saw the new apparatus at the MACROPAK 91 packaging fair, he would have had a good idea of what it was supposed to do and a rough idea of how it would work.

3.5. The board considers that Mr Heitkamp would have seen the lever of the apparatus being pushed down and how, once the closing part had come to a halt by having abutted the base, the ring segments moved inward. Although it is not clear whether a packing was actually closed in this demonstration or even whether an already closed packing was placed in the apparatus, he would still have realised that the apparatus worked according to the steps set out in the pre-characterising portion of claim 1 as granted. These steps were known to him from the method of using the similar D6 apparatus (except that in the latter apparatus the frame performed a diagonal closing movement as opposed to the substantially transverse movement of the ring segments between the first and second closing positions in the present invention). Moreover he would have realised that the ring segments did not move inwards immediately the lever started moving but only after the closing part had come to a halt by having abutted the base. He would have known that this position (as in the D6 apparatus) was the position where the pressure plate contacted the lid of the packing (otherwise the lid would bulge upwardly during closure and this he knew from looking at the closed packing did not happen).

3.6. Accordingly the board finds that even the most basic demonstration of the apparatus at the fair to Mr Heitkamp would have disclosed to him the method of claim 1 of the main request.

3.7. This claim is therefore unallowable and the main request must be refused.

3.8. For essentially the same reasons as those given in sections 3.1 to 3.5 above, the board finds that also the features of the apparatus of claim 2 of the main request were disclosed to Mr Heitkamp at the fair.

4. First auxiliary request - amendments

4.1. The apparatus claim 1 of the first auxiliary request comprises all of the apparatus claim 2 as granted except that the wording has been deleted that it must be suitable "for performing the method of claim 1" i.e. the method claim 1 as granted. The board's objections under Article 123(3) EPC expressed in the third paragraph of the above section VI, have been taken care of by the introduction of said word "only".

The wording "for closing a packing (4) consisting of an upper part (3) having a downward hanging edge (16) and a lower part (2) having a protruding flange (15)" taken from claim 1 as granted is however present in claim 1 of the first auxiliary request. The rest of the subject-matter of claim 1 as granted is also present in claim 1 of the first auxiliary request, sometimes with slightly amended but equivalent wording and sometimes implicitly.

The characterising portion of claim 1 of the first auxiliary request consists of claim 3 as granted.

Thus the amendments made to arrive at claim 1 of the first auxiliary request are unobjectionable under Article 123(2) EPC and, since they do not broaden the scope of the granted claim 2, they are unobjectionable under Article 123(3) EPC as well.

4.2. The characterising portion of claim 2 of the first auxiliary request consists of claims 4 and 5 as granted and a description that bridge piece movement results in each ring segment being moved from its release position to its first closing position and subsequently to its second closing position. This can be seen on the Figures and from page 5, line 36 to page 6, line 16 of the originally filed description (column 4, lines 17 to 37. of the description as granted).

4.3. Claims 3 to 5 of the first auxiliary request correspond to claims 6 to 8 as granted.

4.4. The description and drawings for the first auxiliary request are the same as those granted.

4.5. Thus there is no objection under Article 123 EPC to the version of the patent for the first auxiliary request.

5. First auxiliary request - novelty

5.1. The board found in section 3.8 of this decision that the features of claim 2 of the main request were disclosed at the fair to Mr Heitkamp who is a member of the public. The pre-characterising portion of claim 1 of the first auxiliary request contains these features while the characterising portion contains the features of the granted claim 3. So the board must now decide whether also these added features were disclosed to Mr Heitkamp at the fair.

5.2. First of all it must be remembered that there is a difference between, on the one hand, selling the apparatus and, on the other hand, merely exhibiting and demonstrating it.

5.3. In the former case the apparatus could have been examined carefully and even dismantled to find out every detail of how it was constructed and how it worked. If it had corresponded exactly to the apparatus depicted and described in the subsequent patent application, then the conclusion of the opposition division in section 6 on page 7 of its decision would have been correct that "all claims which can only be based on the disclosure of the application lack novelty".

5.4. There was however no sale. The apparatus was only exhibited and, the board has decided, demonstrated. However the apparatus remained the responsibility of Mr Herber and so the opportunity Mr Heitkamp had to inspect it was limited. Thus what Mr Heitkamp could learn about the apparatus was limited. In particular even the respondent accepted that to see the bridge piece of the apparatus it would be necessary to remove the cover, see section VIII of this decision, whereas it has never been suggested that the cover was in fact removed or that Mr Herber would have allowed it to be removed. Accordingly at least this bridge piece was not available to the public and the blanket conclusion of the opposition division cited in the above paragraph is wrong.

5.5. This bridge piece is however not specified in the independent claim of the first auxiliary request so the allowability of this request still needs to be considered in more detail.

5.6. Referring to the characterising portion of claim 1 of the first auxiliary request, the board considers that Mr Heitkamp would have seen that each ring segment was slideably mounted in the pressure plate.

5.7. In the apparatus brought to the oral proceedings before the board, it was possible, if one looked carefully, to see four small, rounded components, one at each corner, between the respective ring segment and the pressure plate. It can be derived from Figures 4 to 7 and column 4, lines 25 to 42 of the patent specification that these rounded components are the spacer members 23 specified in claim 1 of the first auxiliary request.

5.8. However the patent specification and the preceding patent application were not available to Mr Heitkamp, he did not mention these components during the taking of evidence and he and Mr Herber did not discuss technical details (see the last paragraph on page 7 of the minutes of the taking of evidence). So it seems that he took no notice of the components. The board does not consider that Mr Heitkamp, assuming he saw them at the fair, learned what these rounded components were or what they did i.e. with what they cooperated.

It must be borne in mind that there is no prior art example on file of a spacer member performing a similar function to that in the present patent and that there is no equivalent spacer member in the prior art apparatus of D6. Moreover the sequential movements of the ring segments differed from the composite (diagonal) movement of the frame of the D6 apparatus. Thus Mr Heitkamp, when looking at the apparatus at the fair, could not have been expected to know (from the prior art) or deduce the function of the spacer members (bearing in mind that at that time he could not have had the patent specification or application to help him).

5.9. The claim explains that the pressure plate has a receiving space 24 for each spacer member 23, each spacer member being aligned with its receiving space in the first closing position 24 and received therein during a movement of its associated ring segment 9 to the second closing position.

In the apparatus brought to the oral proceedings before the board, it was possible, again if one looked carefully, to see depressions at the corners of the pressure plate. It is the board's opinion that only with knowledge of the patent specification or application would one know that the spacer members enter these depressions and under what conditions of the apparatus, since there is no unambiguous disclosure of these claimed features. Any other evaluation of that what could have been seen is speculative and certainly not founded on unambiguously disclosed features.

5.10. It is pointed out that it has not been proven that the apparatus brought to the oral proceedings was identical with that at the fair.

5.11. Thus the board concludes that it has not been proven with reasonable certainty that Mr Heitkamp learned all of the subject-matter of claim 1 of the first auxiliary request at the fair. It follows from the second paragraph on page 2 and the last paragraph on page 4 of the minutes of the taking of evidence that also colleagues of Mr Heitkamp saw the apparatus at the fair. However statements from these colleagues are not on file and there is no evidence that they saw anything more or realised the significance of what they saw any more than Mr Heitkamp.

5.12. An invention is made available to the public even if no skilled person actually inspected it. It suffices that a skilled person had had the possibility of doing so. Presuming that other visitors at the fair would have been allowed to handle the apparatus, the board has to consider whether such visitors - being skilled persons - would have been able to observe the above details and draw correct conclusions about their functioning without access to the patent application or specification. The board must answer this in the negative, since a sufficient understanding of the apparatus would have required its dismantling.

5.13. Accordingly the board finds that the subject-matter of claim 1 of the first auxiliary request is novel over the disclosure at the MACROPAK 91 packaging fair. No other source of information has been alleged to be novelty destroying and so the subject-matter of this claim is novel within the meaning of Article 54 EPC.

6. The board has limited the prior art discussion to novelty regarding the alleged public prior use at the MACROPAK 91 packaging fair and is therefore now remitting the case to the opposition division for further prosecution (Article 111(1) EPC) on the basis of the first auxiliary request. Accordingly no comments are needed on the second and third auxiliary requests (beyond what is contained in sections VIII, IX and 5.4).

Order

ORDER

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The decision under appeal is set aside.

2. The main request of the appellant is refused.

3. The case is remitted to the first instance for further prosecution.

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