Selected decisions 

The mere generation of further data from measurement data already collected from the human body is not a technical effect (T

2681/16 and the Guidelines for Examination not followed). See Reasons 2.3 of the decision.

1. The signature requirement under Rule 113(1) EPC applies to the written decision, including its substantiation (Reasons 4 to 8).

2. The purpose of the signature requirement under Rule 113(1) EPC is only achieved if there is an unbroken chain of manifest personal responsibility, taken by each member of the decision-making body who is assigned to the case, throughout the decision-making process, including for the written decision (Reasons 12).

3. The omission of a member's signature from the appealed decision was not retrospectively remedied by another member's signing on their behalf and providing a written explanation. In particular, this could not be seen as a correction under Rule 140 EPC. The omission was a substantial procedural violation, and the decision is invalid (Reasons 35 to 46).

In einem Anspruch wird allgemein versucht, eine Vorrichtung unter Idealbedingungen zu definieren. Kann sich der Fachmann unter Berücksichtigung der Offenbarung und des allgemeinen Fachwissens erschließen, was funktioniert und was nicht, ist eine beanspruchte Erfindung hinreichend offenbart, auch wenn eine breite Auslegung einen Gegenstand einschließen könnte, der nicht funktioniert. Im vorliegenden Fall ist der Fachmann in der Lage, Situationen direkt zu erkennen und auszuschließen, die offenkundig die angestrebte Wirkung nicht erzielen (etwa aufgrund einer verdeckten Sicht) und darauf durch eine angepasste Positionsbestimmungsvorrichtung zu reagieren. Die Kammer hat keine Zweifel daran, dass der Fachmann im Rahmen seines allgemeinen Fachwissens das funktionale Merkmal einer optischen Positionsbestimmungs­vorrichtung den Größenverhältnissen der zu transportierenden Objekte anpassen würde (vgl. Entscheidungsgründe 3.6 und 3.7).

Zur Bewertung der erfinderischen Tätigkeit sollte als nächstliegender Stand der Technik in der Regel ein Dokument des Stands der Technik herangezogen werden, das einen Gegenstand offenbart, der zum gleichen Zweck oder mit demselben Ziel entwickelt wurde. Dabei sollte der Formulierung der ursprünglichen Aufgabe und der beabsichtigten Verwendung sowie der zu erzielenden Wirkungen generell mehr Gewicht beigemessen werden als einer Höchstzahl identischer technischer Merkmale (vgl. Entscheidungsgründe 4.2 bis 4.5).

1. In the context of the examination as to formal requirements of the European patent application, the Receiving Section is competent under Rule 58 EPC to identify inconsistencies in the application documents which are immediately apparent from the face of the documents, including whether formal discrepancies are present between amended documents and the documents as originally filed, provided no technical knowledge is required.

2. If a patent application is refused under Article 90(5) EPC, the deficiency on which the decision is based can be remedied at the appeal stage. In such a case the decision refusing the patent application must be rectified pursuant to Article 109 EPC.

1. The notification of a communication or decision on a person who does not possess legal capacity and who is not properly represented is null and void, as are procedural acts involving or performed by such person.

2. Legal incapacity of a person means that they are suffering from a disturbance of their mind which makes them unable to act on their own in proceedings before the EPO. Legal (in-)capacity is to be assessed ex officio, and it requires a reliable medical opinion.

3. There is a general presumption in favour of legal capacity of a natural person appearing as party or representative before the EPO, but this presumption no longer holds if there are indications to the contrary, in particular from this person's conduct in the proceedings.

4. The standards of assessing legal capacity regarding natural persons are the same as those regarding professional representatives, as only unified standards according to the autonomous law of the EPC can guarantee equal treatment of the parties.

5. Proceedings before the EPO are to be interrupted in the event of legal incapacity of an applicant or proprietor, and are to be resumed with the person authorised to continue.

6. From the mere fact that the Legal Division is responsible for entries in the European Patent Register, with the dates of interruption or resumption of proceedings being among the entries to be made in the register, it cannot be derived that the Legal Division would also be responsible for the decision to interrupt themselves.

7. The allocation of tasks among the first-instance departments of the EPO by a decision of the President of the EPO presupposes the competence of the first instance, and cannot in itself establish a continuing competence of the Legal Division with regard to interruption during appeal proceedings, where the boards have exclusive competence.

8. When the first-instance proceedings are declared null and void by the board, they are to be resumed and continued with a representative to appoint, and with further notifications to make on that representative.

9. The concept of the appointment of a representative for legal proceedings is inherent in the system of the EPC, and can, as a matter of principle, be applied to any case where a representative is essential to guarantee the participation of a legally incapable person as party and thus a fair trial.