T 0447/22 of 28.09.2023

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2023:T044722.20230928
Date of decision: 28 September 2023
Case number: T 0447/22
Petition for review of: -
Application number: 10769374.9
IPC class: B29C 63/00 F16L 55/179 F16L 55/26
Language of proceedings: English
Distribution: No distribution (D)
Download: Decision in English
OJ versions: No OJ links found
Other decisions for this case: -
Abstracts for this decision: Abstract on EPC2000 Art 084
Application title: A tool and a method for renovation of a pipe system
Applicant name: Picote Solutions Oy Ltd
Opponent name: Sukitustukku Oy (Fixaline)
Boldan Oy
Board: 3.2.05
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions: European Patent Convention Art 100(a)European Patent Convention Art 100(c)European Patent Convention Art 101(3)European Patent Convention Art 112(1)(a)European Patent Convention Art 123(2)European Patent Convention Art 54(1)European Patent Convention Art 56 European Patent Convention Art 83 European Patent Convention Art 84 European Patent Convention R 80Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 013(2)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 015(5)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 10(3)
Keywords: Acceleration of appeal proceedings (yes)
Claim interpretation
Grounds for opposition - subject-matter extends beyond content of earlier application (no)
Grounds for opposition - lack of patentability (yes)
Novelty (auxiliary request 1: no; auxiliary request 2: yes)
Amendments - added subject-matter (auxiliary request 2: no)
Sufficiency of disclosure (auxiliary request 2: yes)
Inventive step (auxiliary request 2: yes)
Late-filed objection - admitted (no)
Claims - support in the description (overcoming objections arising out of amendments made in the course of the opposition proceedings: yes)
Re-opening the debate (no)
Referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal (no)
Catchword: 1. On the limits of claim interpretation in the light of the description (see point 13 of the reasons).
2. In application of decision G 3/14, an objection under Article 84 EPC that a claim is not supported by the description is open to examination in opposition or opposition appeal proceedings only when, and then only to the extent that, the lack of support has been introduced by an amendment to the patent. It must thus be accepted that the removal of an inconsistency between the description and a claim amended in opposition or opposition appeal proceedings is not possible when the inconsistency previously existed in the patent as granted (see point 83 of the reasons).
Cited cases: G 0010/91 G 0012/91 G 0003/98 G 0003/14 R 0010/08 T 0345/90 T 0701/91 T 0367/96 T 0433/97 T 1149/97 T 0190/99 T 0881/01 T 0556/02 T 1018/02 T 0431/03 T 0154/04 T 0300/04 T 1408/04 T 0323/05 T 1808/06 T 1582/08 T 0197/10 T 0712/10 T 1597/12 T 1646/12 T 1360/13 T 1249/14 T 1817/14 T 1391/15 T 1646/16 T 1904/16 T 2766/17 T 1024/18 T 2293/18 T 2391/18 T 2773/18 T 1983/19 T 3097/19 T 0169/20 T 0500/20
Citing cases: T 0056/21 T 1208/21 T 0010/22 T 0177/22 T 0439/22 T 0697/22 T 0736/22 T 1758/22 T 2279/22

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The request for referral of questions of law to the Enlarged Board of Appeal is refused.

2. The decision under appeal is set aside.

3. The case is remitted to the opposition division with the order to maintain the patent as amended on the basis of the following documents:

- claims: 1 to 10 of auxiliary request 2, filed with letter of 29 July 2021,

- description: paragraphs 1 to 40, filed with letter of 16 June 2023,

- drawings: figures 1 to 6b of the patent specification.