5.3. Applicabilité de la règle 137(5) CBE
5.3.1 Généralités
La règle 137(5) CBE prévoit ce qui suit : "Les revendications modifiées ne doivent pas porter sur des éléments qui n'ont pas fait l'objet de la recherche et qui ne sont pas liés à l'invention ou à la pluralité d'inventions initialement revendiquées de manière à former un seul concept inventif général. Elles ne doivent pas non plus porter sur des éléments qui n'ont pas fait l'objet de la recherche conformément à la règle 62bis ou à la règle 63".
Conformément à la jurisprudence constante des chambres de recours, la règle 137(5) CBE n'est pas applicable lorsque le demandeur n'a pas acquitté la taxe de recherche concernant une invention non unitaire qui portait sur les revendications originellement déposées (voir T 708/00, JO 2004, 160 ; T 1285/11).
Dans l'affaire T 613/99, la chambre a déclaré que la règle 86(4) CBE 1973 (désormais règle 137(5) CBE) vise une situation particulière, à savoir : un objet bien que décrit n'était pas revendiqué dans la demande initiale et, par suite, n'a pas été recherché ; ledit objet ne satisfaisait pas à l'exigence d'unité d'invention avec l'objet revendiqué dans la demande initiale, et à la suite du rapport de recherche, le demandeur a déposé de nouvelles revendications ne portant que sur cet objet non recherché. La brevetabilité de ces nouvelles revendications ne peut pas être examinée dans le cadre de la demande initiale, car ce serait déroger au principe rappelé dans la décision G 2/92 (JO 1993, 591), suivant lequel une invention doit, pour pouvoir être examinée, avoir donné lieu au paiement d'une taxe de recherche. Dans le cas d'espèce, la situation n'était nullement comparable. L'objet revendiqué dans la présente demande était déjà revendiqué dans la demande initiale et avait donc été soumis à la recherche, même si aucune recherche significative n'avait pu être entreprise. En outre, l'invention faisant l'objet des revendications 1 et 2 de la présente demande était sensiblement la même que celle faisant l'objet des revendications 1 et 2 de la demande initiale. Dans une telle situation, si la division d'examen infirmait une conclusion de la division de recherche relativement à un objet de l'invention exclu de la recherche, une recherche européenne dite "additionnelle" pouvait être réalisée à la demande de la division d'examen.
- T 1176/24
T 1176/24 was an appeal against the examining division’s decision not to admit the main request under R. 137(5) EPC.
The sole independent claim 1 of the main request was a combination of original claim 90 (with reference to original claim 1) and the features of original claim 93. The examining division had agreed with the competent search division that the common concept between original claim 1 and original claim 93 was the friction coefficient increasing treatments, which was known from D1. Since this concept was known, it could not serve as a single general inventive concept, so that the original application did not fulfil the requirement for unity of invention under an a posteriori analysis. Furthermore, the applicant had not paid the requested additional search fee in time and the invention of original claim 93 had therefore not been searched. The examining division had concluded that claim 1 of the main request related to unsearched subject-matter which did not combine with the originally claimed group of inventions to form a single general inventive concept.
The board, however, was of the view that the examining division had erred in its application of R. 137(5) EPC by merely finding that original claim 93 did not meet the requirements of unity when assessed a posteriori. This criterion was irrelevant in the context of the case at hand when applying R. 137(5) EPC.
The board recalled that, according to well-established case law, R. 137(5) EPC did not apply when the applicant has not paid the search fee in respect of a non-unitary invention relating to the originally filed claims. Furthermore, the examining division had not established whether the features of original claim 93 as basis of the amendment to claim 1 of the main request could be subordinated to the original general inventive idea underlying original claim 90 with reference to original claim 1. The subject-matter of claim 1 of the main request as well as the subject-matter of original claim 90 were directed to a threaded fastener, i.e. an assembly of a nut or a stud-head and a reaction washer for receiving counter torque generated due to tightening or loosening of the threaded fastener. The feature added by original claim 93 related to a further and more specific implementation of the interplay between the nut or stud-head and the reaction washer in defining a bond that connects said elements and breaks at or prior to a predetermined pre-torque.
The board was therefore convinced that claim 1 of the main request merely constituted a restriction to a particular embodiment of the subject-matter as claimed in the original claim 90 (with reference to original claim 1) and could be subordinated to the original general inventive idea. This applied as well if the general inventive idea relating to original claim 90 (with reference to original claim 1) was to be seen in an improvement in the friction between the workpiece and the reaction washer, as it was defined by the examining division. In this context, the board pointed to the features of original claim 93, which established a connection between the breaking point of the connection between the nut/stud-head and the reaction washer in dependence of the existent friction forces.
The board concluded that claim 1 of the main request did not fulfil the conditions required for the application of R. 137(5) EPC and that the examining division’s decision not to allow the amended claims under that provision was incorrect.
In its decision, the board stressed that a supplementary search concerning the aspects arising from original claim 93, then reflected in claim 1 of the main request, would be in accordance with due process should the examining division deem it necessary. Moreover, such supplementary search appeared to be highly appropriate in the light of the examining division's findings.