7. Clôture de la procédure de recours

Catchword:

1. Neither the omission of a procedural act nor an error caused by miscommunication between the applicant and the representative or by an incorrect recollection of the applicant's instructions can be regarded as an error under Rule 139 EPC, provided that the document filed with the EPO is deemed to express the representative's intention at the time of filing. 2. A request for correction of a declaration of withdrawal of an appeal under Rule 139 EPC does not reopen the appeal proceedings, but only starts ancillary proceedings to decide whether the appeal proceedings should be reopened.

Catchword: 

1. "Proceedings" to be re-opened under Article 112a(5) EPC following an allowable petition are limited to rectifying the defect found according to the review decision. The present proceedings as re-opened by the Enlarged Board in R 3/22 are thus not the appeal proceedings, but "ancillary proceedings" with the limited purpose to decide on the request for correction of the withdrawal of the appeal (see point 2 of the Reasons).  2. Rule 139 EPC is applicable only if proceedings before the EPO for some other purpose are pending when the request for correction is received by the EPO. The request for correction is inadmissible if received when no such proceedings are pending (see point 3 of the Reasons).  3. A patent application subject to the examining division's refusal, which is in turn subject to an appeal that has been withdrawn, is not "pending" within the meaning of Rule 36(1) EPC (see point 4 of the Reasons).

Catchword:

There is no legal basis in the EPC or the RPBA (in the versions of 2007 and 2020) that prevents the board from examining in the case at hand an objection of lack of inventive step raised by the respondent in the appeal proceedings against the patent as granted or as amended that was not addressed in the decision under appeal. Nor does the case law prevent the board from doing so. This means that the board may examine whether such an objection is substantiated, whether it should be admitted into the appeal proceedings and whether it prejudices the maintenance of the patent as granted or as amended, as the case may be. (See section 2 of the Reasons)]