Résumé de EPC2000 Art 056 pour la décision T0929/18 du 13.05.2022

In T 929/18 the examining division had refused the application for lack of inventive step without referring to any prior art documents. In particular, claim 5 referred to mobile user devices in a "peer-to-peer" data sharing group. Each mobile user device of the data sharing group stored the shared data and maintained a list of the mobile user devices in the data sharing group. Messages from one mobile user device were directed to the respective members of the group through a relay or router, and the messages contained the addresses of the group members. The examining division considered that the "peer-to-peer" data sharing group was administrative in nature and that the implementation via the relay or router was an insignificant technical detail, essentially being mapped onto the router in a conventional network. Thus, the technical character of independent claim 5 resided solely in the implementation of an administrative scheme on a notoriously known electronic data processing system comprising a local and a remote computer communicating over a network and exchanging data. The board disagreed with the view of the examining division. Essentially, the board, referring to decision T 1411/08, held that a mobile user device of a peer-to-peer data sharing group was a technical feature of the infrastructure of the system, which went beyond a notorious data processing system. Therefore, the board remitted the case to the examining division for an additional search to be carried out (Guidelines C-IV, 7.2). The board noted that the Guidelines did not define what such an additional search should cover. In the board's view, in a case like this, where no search had been carried out, the additional search should be just as complete as a normal prior art search under Art. 92 EPC. Furthermore, in the interest of proper administration, the results of the search ought to be presented in the public file, either in a separate document or in a communication of the examining division. At a minimum, the field of search and the relevant documents should be indicated. Should the search not reveal any relevant documents, a statement to that effect would allow the applicant, a board of appeal and third parties to conclude that the search had been completed.