Selected decisions 

1. Inventive step - credibility of the alleged technical

effect and burden of proof (reasons, points 2.5.6 and

2.5.7).

2. The amendment referred to in Article 12(4) RPBA is not

synonymous with the "amendment to a party's appeal case"

within the meaning of Article 13(2) RPBA (reasons, point

3.5).

3. An amendment by way of deletion of an (alternative in an)

independent claim is an amendment of the appeal case within

the meaning of Art 13(2) RPBA (reasons, point 3.6).

The general idea of protecting a transaction, here a registration, with a password is non-technical and also well known. The idea of using a predefined set of one-time passwords for user authentication also lacks technicality. Even when considered technical, it could not support an inventive step, as it corresponds to the well-known transaction authentication number (TAN) authentication procedure commonly used in online transactions. Using a server to store and verify the TAN numbers and distributing these on cards is a straightforward implementation of this known procedure.

(See point 8 of the reasons)

1. The requirement for immediate and complete substantiation of a request for re-establishment corresponds to the principle of "Eventualmaxime/Häufungsgrundsatz/le principe de la concentration des moyens", according to which the request must state all grounds for re-establishment and means of evidence without the possibility of submitting these at a later stage.

2. Dynamic interpretation of the EPC, as derived from Articles 31(1) and 31(3) Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, must take account of developments in national and international procedural law, notably as regards the guarantees of fair trial before a tribunal of law (Article 6(1) ECHR).

3. There is no "absolute" right to oral proceedings upon a party's request, but it is subject to inherent restrictions by the EPC, and due to procedural principles generally recognised in the Contracting States of the EPO.

4. If oral proceedings do not serve any legitimate purpose, the requirement of legal certainty in due time prevents the Board from appointing them.

5. It is not the purpose of oral proceedings in the context of proceedings for re-establishment to give the appellant a further chance to substantiate their factual assertions or to provide evidence despite the absence of factual assertions in the request for re-establishment.

1. The rationale of the Enlarged Board of Appeal's decisions

G 2/88 and G 6/88 is limited to claims directed to (new) non-medical uses of a known compound for a particular purpose, rather than to processes for production within the meaning of Article 64(2) EPC. In order to be a limiting technical feature of the claim, the (new) purpose must relate to the use rather than to a property of the product (see Reasons 15).

2. Claims which when correctly construed are directed to processes resulting in products referred to in Article 64(2) EPC are not subject to the special treatment established under G 2/88 and G 6/88, even if they contain the word "use" (see Reasons 9).

3. Where an invention relates to a new technical effect of a physical entity that can only occur as part of a process for the production or manufacture of a product, such that it is inextricably linked to and cannot occur in isolation from the production process, a claim directed to the "use" of the physical entity to achieve that effect must be regarded as directed to the production process per se (see Reasons 23).

4. For the criteria to be used in deciding whether auxiliary requests were admissibly raised in opposition proceedings, in the sense of Article 12(4) RPBA, see Reasons 38 to 52.

1. Die Fachperson muss im Rahmen des Aufgabe-Lösungs-Ansatzes gewöhnlich zunächst die Lehre des nächstliegenden Standes der Technik ausarbeiten. Kommt die Fachperson alleine durch das Ausarbeiten dieser Lehre schon zur beanspruchten Lösung, kann als objektive technische Aufgabe die Ausarbeitung der Lehre des nächstliegenden Standes der Technik angesehen werden (Gründe 3.3.3).

2. Der Geschäftsmann kennt in dem die Erfindung betreffenden Geschäftsgebiet einfache technische Konzepte, mit denen er sich regelmäßig auseinandersetzen muss, insbesondere wenn diese Konzepte betriebswirtschaftliche Aspekte, z.B. Kosten, betreffen (Gründe 5.4.3).