Selected decisions in 2020

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

1. One aspect of the right to be heard as covered by Article 113(1) EPC requires a board to consider a party's submissions, i.e. assess the facts, evidence and arguments submitted as to their relevance and correctness.
Article 113(1) EPC is infringed if the board does not address submissions that, in its view, are relevant for the decision in a manner adequate to show that the parties were heard on them, i.e. that the board substantively considered those submissions. (See Reasons, point 2.1.1, affirming the relevant part of catchword 1 of R 8/15).
2. A board is presumed to have taken into account a party's submissions that it did not address in the reasons for its decision, meaning that it, first, took note of them and, second, considered them, i.e. assessed whether they were relevant and, if so, whether they were correct.
An exception may apply if there are indications to the contrary, e.g. if a board does not address in the reasons for its decision submissions by a party that, on an objective basis, are decisive for the outcome of the case, or dismisses such submissions without first assessing them as to their correctness. (See Reasons, point 2.1.1.2).

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Zum Verhältnis zwischen "subjektiver" und "objektiver" technischer Aufgabe: siehe Punkt 3.4 der Entscheidungsgründe.

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

The Board judges that using ranges of unit identifiers to label a number of (consecutive) unit identifiers of manufactured items is, at the level of generality at which it is claimed, on the business side of the line between technical and non-technical subject-matter (see e.g. T 144/11 - Security rating System / SATO MICHIHIRO, points 2.1, and 3.6 to 3.9).(See point 2.5 of the reasons)
The ranges of unit identifiers do have a meaning for the business person. They correspond to batches of units produced on a production line. (See point 2.6 of the reasons)
Even if the "determining of ranges of unit identifiers" achieved a technical effect, such as reducing data storage and data bandwidth requirements, it is a matter of routine design for the skilled person, a software programmer or a database expert, based on common general knowledge to store the first and the last element of a list of items, instead of the whole list. (See point 2.9 of the reasons)

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

The specification of the business method ended with how to determine the reward distribution ratio. The features of dividing the advertisement display area into partial areas and allocating each partial area to a user such that when the partial area is clicked on the user gets a reward, were based on technical considerations of the web page system. It was not motivated by any business considerations.
...
In order to come up with this idea, one needs to understand how a web site is built, and in particular how an image map works. Thus, this feature cannot be part of the non-technical requirements. Instead it is part of the solution that has to be evaluated for obviousness. (See point 2.10 of the reasons)

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Possibility for a board of appeal to exclude a document admitted by the opposition division because of its prima facie relevance (see point 3 of the reasons).

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

The boards have competence to review appealed decisions in full, including points of law and fact. This applies also to
findings of fact of the department of first instance which are based, at least in part, on the evaluation of witness evidence obtained in the course of hearing a witness (reasons, point 3.1 and sub-points).

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

1. The appellant is adversely affected by the decision to grant a patent in the present case, as all of the drawing sheets as requested are missing from the text of the granted patent (point 1).
2. It is not the content of the text intended for grant which triggers the deemed approval under Rule 71(5) EPC, but rather the applicant paying the fee for grant and publishing and filing the translations according to Rule 71(5) EPC. Thus the "true will" of the members of the examining division when editing the communication pursuant to Rule 71(3) EPC is of no relevance (point 2).

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Addition of further Designation States after grant (no)

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Zur Frage der Geringfügigkeit des Differenzbetrags zur vollen Beschwerdegebühr siehe Gründe Nr. 4.8.
Zur Frage eines impliziten Antrags auf Berichtigung eines Abbuchungsauftrags sowie der Rechtszeitigkeit der Einreichung eines Berichtigungsantrags siehe Gründe Nr. 5.7 bis 5.14.
Zur Frage der ex officio Korrektur von Beträgen in Abbuchungsaufträgen siehe Gründe Nr. 6.1 und 6.2.
Zur Frage der Interpretation eines Abbuchungsauftrags hinsichtlich der Beschwerdegebühr siehe Gründe Nr. 8.4.

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

The added features cannot be considered to be
the deliberate result of technical considerations directed to the solution of the technical problem involved.
In the absence of any identified technical purpose justifying the features in question, their selection in a claim is arbitrary (cf. points 16-22).

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

See reasons 2

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Auch wenn eine Erklärung nach Nr. 3 und 4 der Mitteilung des EPA vom 18. Dezember 2017 nicht schon bei Zahlung der ermäßigten Beschwerdegebühr verlangt werden kann, ist die Kammer jedoch befugt und verpflichtet, die Voraussetzungen für die wirksame Einlegung und die Zulässigkeit der Beschwerde in jedem Verfahrensstadium zu prüfen. Eine Überprüfung durch die Kammer ist insbesondere dann geboten, wenn das Vorliegen der Voraussetzungen nach Regel 6 (4) und (5) EPÜ für die Zahlung der ermäßigten Beschwerdegebühr von anderen Verfahrensbeteiligten bestritten wird. Dabei werden eine entsprechende Erklärung und Belege auch noch nach Ablauf der Beschwerdefrist akzeptiert (vgl. Nr. 2 und 3 der Entscheidungsgründe).

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

see reasons 3.2

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

If the arguments in the appealed decision show that for the discretionary decision taken in the first instance some criteria weighed so heavily that other criteria cannot outweigh them, it is not always necessary that all criteria that could theoretically influence a discretionary decision concerning the admittance of a late filed request are discussed in the appealed decision (point 2.2.3)
If the need to file amended requests does not arise owing to the submission of additional documents that are merely confirming the arguments on file but had existed before, the filing of such additional documents cannot always justify the filing of new (belated) requests (point 2.3).

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

As to the interpretation of Rule 103(4)(c) EPC, see point 6 of the Reasons.

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

i) The board is empowered to and must assess the validity of a priority right claim as required by Article 87(1) EPC,
ii) the board's interpretation of the expression "any person" in Article 87(1) EPC confirms the long-established "all applicants" or the "same applicants" approach,
iii) the national law does not govern who is "any person" as per Article 87(1) EPC, the Paris Convention determines who "any person" is.

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

siehe Gründe 3

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

The criteria set out in the Guidelines for Examination in the European Patent Office (November 2016 update) at paragraph H.IV.3.5, concerning the allowability of amendments under Article 123(3) EPC, are inappropriate for the assessment of compliance with Article 123(2) EPC (see point 1.5.1 of the reasons).

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Nach dem Wortlaut von Regel 103 (4) c) EPÜ ist es nicht Voraussetzung, dass alle vorliegenden Anträge auf mündliche Verhandlung innerhalb eines Monats ab Zustellung einer von der Beschwerdekammer zur Vorbereitung der mündlichen Verhandlung erlassenen Mitteilung zurückgenommen werden. Es reicht vielmehr aus, dass ein Antrag auf mündliche Verhandlung fristgerecht zurückgenommen wird, damit die erste Voraussetzung für eine anteilige Rückzahlung der Beschwerdegebühr gemäß Regel 103 (4) c) EPÜ erfüllt ist (vgl. Entscheidungsgründe 7.2).

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

See Reasons 1.4 - Lack of clarity of the expression 'useful for'

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Das beanspruchte Schmiermittel zum Ersatz der Synovialflüssigkeit in erkrankten Gelenken gilt als "Stoff oder Stoffgemisch" im Sinne von Artikel 54(4)(5) EPÜ (Punkt 4.5 der Entscheidungsgründe)

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Eine Änderung der vorläufigen Meinung der Kammer zu einem bestimmten Einspruchsgrund stellt keinen "außergewöhnlichen Umstand" im Sinne von Artikel 13(2) VOBK 2020 dar (siehe Punkt
3 der Entscheidungsgründe).

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Reformatio in peius: siehe Punkt 2 der Entscheidungsgründe

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Zur Berücksichtigung einer in der Beschreibung des Patents erwähnten Aufgabe, welche die beanspruchte Lösung vorwegnimmt, bei der Formulierung der zu lösenden technischen Aufgabe (Siehe Punkte 3.14 bis 3.19 der Gründe).

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

As to the definition of the skilled person for the assessment of inventive step and the interpretation of technical specifications (such as telecommunications standards): see points 2.2 and 2.7 of the Reasons.

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Zur Frage der Bindungswirkung einer vorangegangenen Beschwerdekammer-Entscheidung ("Selbstbindung"): siehe Punkt 5 der Entscheidungsgründe.

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Under Article 76(2) EPC only those Contracting States that had been designated in the earlier application at time of filing the divisional can be designated in the divisional.
A designated state forfeited in the parent application at time of filing the divisional cannot be revived in the divisional one.

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Under Article 76(2) EPC only those Contracting States that had been designated in the earlier application at time of filing the divisional can be designated in the divisional.
A designated state forfeited in the parent application at time of filing the divisional cannot be revived in the divisional one.

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Under Article 76(2) EPC only those Contracting States that had been designated in the earlier application at time of filing the divisional can be designated in the divisional.
A designated state forfeited in the parent application at time of filing the divisional cannot be revived in the divisional one.

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

The notion of a mistake eligible for correction under Rule 139 EPC does not cover the scenario where a declaration of withdrawal reflects the true intention of the applicant, but is based on wrong assumptions.

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Die Feststellung der Unterbrechung eines Verfahrens wegen der Insolvenz eines Patent(mit)inhabers erfolgt zwar regelmäßig rückwirkend. Sie kann aber nur mit Wirkung ex nunc aufgehoben werden. Eine rückwirkende Aufhebung kommt auch nicht im Einzelfall unter Abwägung der betroffenen Interessen in Betracht. Vielmehr handelt es sich dabei um eine Rechtsfrage, die allgemein zu beantworten ist.

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Under Article 76(2) EPC only those states that had been designated in the earlier application at time of filing the divisional can be designated in the divisional.
A designated state forfeited in the parent application at time of filing the divisional cannot be revived in the divisional one.

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

If amendments intended to overcome objections of lack of support and lack of clarity raised in the summons give rise to further objections concerning clarity or added subject-matter, pointing out these further objections does not represent exceptional circumstances within the meaning of Article 13(2) RPBA 2020, but rather an ordinary development of the discussion which does not go beyond the framework of the initial objection. See reasons 5.3 and 5.4.

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

1. Hinsichtlich der von der Einspruchsabteilung vorgenommenen Feststellung der relevanten Fakten ist zu berücksichtigen, dass vor dem Europäischen Patentamt anerkanntermaßen der Grundsatz der freien Beweiswürdigung gilt, was auch Auswirkungen auf die Überprüfung im Beschwerdeverfahren haben muss.
2. Soweit kein Rechtsanwendungsfehler vorliegt (etwa ein falscher Beweismaßstab angewandt wurde), sollte eine Beschwerdekammer daher die Beweiswürdigung eines erstinstanzlichen Spruchkörpers nur aufheben und durch ihre eigene ersetzen, wenn diese erkennbar
(i) wesentliche Gesichtspunkte nicht berücksichtigt hat, oder (ii) sachfremde Erwägungen mit einbezogen hat oder
(iii) einen Verstoß gegen die Denkgesetze, etwa logische Fehler und Widersprüche in der Begründung, erkennen lässt.

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

(1) As to unity of invention under Article 82 EPC, only if the application relates to more than one "invention", the notion of "a single general inventive concept" under Article 82 EPC and the concept of the "same or corresponding special technical features" under Rule 44(1) EPC have to be assessed for the purpose of deciding upon unity of invention (see Reasons, point 1).
(2) As to a refund of further search fees under Rule 64(2) EPC, the decision to refuse a patent application may be understood to implicitly contain the decision to refuse the refund of a further search fee, if the examining division's intent is clear (see Reasons, point 4).
(3) A statement such as "the next procedural step will be summons to oral proceedings during which the application will be refused" made prior to a final decision to refuse a patent application may infringe a party's right to be heard and thus may lead to a substantial procedural violation (see Reasons, point 5).

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Oral proceedings held by videoconference before the Boards of Appeal (see Reasons, point 1).

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Einer Rückzahlung nach Regel 103(4)(c) EPÜ steht nicht entgegen, dass die Kammer bereits zu einem früheren Zeitpunkt einen ausführlicheren Vorbereitungsbescheid gemäß Artikel 15(1) VOBK 2020 erlassen hatte.
Die Frist nach Regel 103(4)(c) EPÜ wird durch jede weitere vorbereitende Mitteilung der Kammer erneut ausgelöst, auch wenn diese im wesentlichen organisatorischen Inhalt hat und erst einen Monat vor der mündlichen Verhandlung ergeht.
Die zum Rückzahlungstatbestand der Regel 103(2)(b) EPÜ (nun Regel 103(3)(b) EPÜ) in T 265/14 diskutierten Erwägungen sind auch auf die vorliegende Fallkonstellation übertragbar. Entscheidend ist der mit der Regelung beabsichtigte Arbeitszeitgewinn, der durch die auf die Mitteilung erklärte Antragsrücknahme und die dadurch ermöglichte effiziente Verfahrensbeendigung im schriftlichen Verfahren erreicht wird.
(siehe Gründe, Ziffern 5 bis 5.6)

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Ein vollständiger Sachvortrag, wie ihn Artikel 108 EPÜ und Artikel 12 VOBK seit jeher verlangen, erfordert bei kumulativ aufeinander aufbauenden Argumentationslinien die Darlegung sämtlicher Tatsachen, die erst gemeinsam das behauptete rechtliche Ergebnis tragen (hier: Offenkundigkeit der Vorbenutzung und neuheitsschädliche Vorwegnahme aller Merkmale der Erfindung durch diese bei Beschwerde gegen die Einstufung einer Erfindung als neu im Sinne von Artikel 54 EPÜ).
Erst dann ist dargelegt, dass die Entscheidung aufgehoben werden sollte, vgl. T 922/05, Gründe Nr. 3 und 4, für den spiegelbildlichen Fall einer Beschwerde gegen eine Entscheidung, die mehrere alternative Gründe für die f e h l e n d e Patentfähigkeit einer Erfindung aufzählt.
Wird von mehreren kumulativ zur Änderung der Entscheidung darzulegenden Tatsachen nur eine ausreichend substantiiert, ist die Beschwerde unzulässig.

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

At the third level of the convergent approach applicable in appeal proceedings in accordance with the revised version of the Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal (RPBA 2020), the boards of appeal are free to use or not use the criteria set out in Article 13(1) RPBA 2020 when deciding, in the exercise of their discretion in accordance with Article 13(2) RPBA 2020, whether to admit an amendment made at this stage of the proceedings. This also holds true when Article 13 RPBA 2007, rather than Article 13(2) RPBA 2020, is to be applied. (See section 16 of the Reasons)

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

At the third level of the convergent approach applicable in appeal proceedings in accordance with the revised version of the Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal (RPBA 2020), the boards of appeal are free to use or not use the criteria set out in Article 13(1) RPBA 2020 when deciding, in the exercise of their discretion in accordance with Article 13(2) RPBA 2020, whether to admit an amendment made at this stage of the proceedings. This also holds true when Article 13 RPBA 2007, rather than Article 13(2) RPBA 2020, is to be applied. (See points 3.7 to 3.11 of the Reasons)

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

An invention is not insufficiently disclosed in the sense of Article 83 EPC just because a lack of support in the sense of Article 84 EPC of a broad claim cannot be resolved by consulting the description.

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

1. Die vorliegende, auf maschinellem Lernen insbesondere im Zusammenhang mit einem künstlichen neuronalen Netz beruhende Erfindung ist nicht ausreichend offenbart, da das erfindungsgemäße Training des künstlichen neuronalen Netzes mangels Offenbarung nicht ausführbar ist.
2. Da sich im vorliegenden Fall das beanspruchte Verfahren vom Stand der Technik nur durch ein künstliches neuronales Netz unterscheidet, dessen Training nicht im Detail offenbart ist, führt die Verwendung des künstlichen neuronalen Netzes nicht zu einem speziellen technischen Effekt, der erfinderische Tätigkeit begründen könnte.

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

The "weather" is not a technical system that the skilled person can improve, or even simulate with the purpose of trying to improve it. It is a physical system that can be modelled in the sense of showing how it works. This kind of modelling is rather a discovery or a scientific theory, which are excluded under Article 52(2)(a) EPC and thus do not contribute to the technical character of the invention (see point 2.10ff.).

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

See point 3.

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

The fact that the skilled person is taught in the prior art to investigate polymorphs in order to isolate the crystalline form having the most desirable properties is in itself not necessarily sufficient to consider a specific polymorphic form having a certain desired property obvious (see point 4.3.4 of the Reasons).

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Falls das Entscheidungsformblatt nicht die Unterschrift von allen Mitgliedern einer Prüfungsabteilung enthält, ist die Entscheidung der Prüfungsabteilung ungültig. Dies stellt einen wesentlichen Verfahrensmangel dar.

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Vorliegen besonderer Gründe im Sinne von Artikel 11, Satz 1 VOBK 2020 (siehe Punkt 4 der Entscheidungsgründe)

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

In der dritten Stufe des nach der revidierten Fassung der Verfahrensordnung der Beschwerdekammern (VOBK 2020) im Beschwerdeverfahren anzuwendenden Konvergenzansatzes steht es der Kammer frei, die in Artikel 13 (1) VOBK 2020 angegebenen Kriterien heranzuziehen, wenn sie in Anwendung des Artikels 13 (2) VOBK 2020 und in Ausübung ihres Ermessens darüber entscheidet, ob eine in diesem Verfahrensstadium vorgenommene Änderung zugelassen wird. Dies gilt auch, wenn Artikel 13 (2) VOBK 2020 nicht anwendbar ist und stattdessen weiterhin Artikel 13 VOBK 2007 anzuwenden ist. (Siehe Punkte 1.2.7 bis 1.2.11 der Entscheidungsgründe)

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

See Reasons 3.1; document admitted by the opposition division upon which the decision was based - not to be excluded from appeal proceedings.

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Der Fachmann bedarf keiner Anregung, um sein Fachwissen zur Anwendung zu bringen (siehe Punkt 3.5 der Entscheidungsgründe)

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

The notional business person might come up with the abstract idea of avoiding the customer having to provide PIN and account information to the merchant.
The invention however requires a new infrastructure, new devices and a new protocol involving technical considerations linked to modified devices and their capabilities as well as security relevant modifications of the transfer of sensitive information using new possibilities achieved by the modifications to the previously known mobile POS infrastructure.
This goes beyond what the notional business person knows and concerns technical implementation details (how to implement) which are more than a straight-forward 1:1 programming of an abstract business idea. (See point 5 of the reasons).
This is in the sphere of the technical expert and subject to the assessment of inventive step (see T 1082/13).

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

The declaration of entitlement mentioned in the Notice of 18 December 2017 concerning the reduced appeal fee can be filed until the end of the appeal period, despite the wording of point 4, last sentence, of the Notice, which must be reconciled with the meaning of point 11 of the Notice.

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Die Streichung der Verfahrensansprüche in Hilfsantrag 5 gegenüber dem mit der Beschwerdeerwiderung eingereichten Hilfsantrag 3 wird nicht als Änderung des Beschwerdevorbringens gesehen, da sich dadurch keine geänderte Sachlage ergibt (siehe Punkte 2.3 der Gründe).

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Zur Möglichkeit und den Folgen von Berichtigungen inhaltlich unzutreffender, in der Patentschrift enthaltener Hinweise auf den Stand der Technik, siehe Punkte 2. bis 2.5 und 3.3.3 bis 3.3.6

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

see Reasons - points 2.4.3 and 2.4.5

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Application of Rule 80 EPC (see point 6 of the Reasons)
Treating insufficiency objections step by step
(see point 12.2.10 of the Reasons)

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Rechtfertigung der Wahl des Ausgangspunkts zur Prüfung der erfinderischen Tätigkeit (siehe Punkt 5.1 der Entscheidungsgründe).

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

No need for a hint to the claimed solution in the closest prior art (see point 3.2.3)

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

An error in a duly filed form for paying the opposition fee may be corrected under Rule 139, first sentence, EPC (points 4.1 to 4.6 of the reasons).

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Implicitly disclosed disclaimer (see point 4 of the reasons)

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

In the application of the problem-solution approach for the assessment of inventive step, the person skilled in the art within the meaning of Article
56 EPC enters the stage
only when
the objective technical problem has been formulated in view of the selected "closest prior art".
Only then can the notional
skilled person's relevant technical field and its extent be appropriately defined. Therefore, it cannot be the
"skilled person
" who selects
the closest prior art
in the first step of the problem-solution approach. Rather, this selection is to be
made by the relevant deciding body, on the basis of the established criteria,
in order to avoid any hindsight analysis
(see point
2.1.4 of the Reasons).

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Ermächtigung einer Kammer, im Falle einer Zurückverweisung an die erste Instanz eine Änderung der Zusammensetzung dieses Organs anzuordnen (siehe Punkt 3.1 der Entscheidungsgründe)

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Die ursprünglich mit Rechtsgrund angeforderten und gezahlten Jahresgebühren wandeln sich durch eine zögerliche Tätigkeit des Amts im Prüfungsverfahren nicht nachträglich in rechtsgrundlos geleistete um (Punkt 7 der Entscheidungsgründe).

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

T 1003/19, T 2081/16 not followed

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Plausibility - (points 2.1 to 2.8, 7.2 and 11)

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Special reasons within the meaning of Article 11, 1st sentence RPBA 2020 for remitting a case to the department whose decision was appealed for further prosecution (see points 8 to 12 of the Reasons)

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Reasons 4 and 5

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Transitional provisions - applicability of Article 13(1) RPBA
2020 to cases where the summons to oral proceedings were
notified before the entry into force of the RPBA 2020 (see
point 1 of the Reasons)

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

La division d'opposition outrepasse les limites appropriées de son pouvoir d'appréciation lorsqu'elle déclare n'admettre qu'une seule requête subsidiaire et écarte d'emblée des requêtes supplémentaires sans raisons apparentes valables et sans même avoir examiné si les modifications auraient permis d'écarter toutes les objections valablement soulevées jusque là sans donner lieu à de nouvelles, les rendant ainsi potentiellement recevables (cf. point 4 des motifs).

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Auch der nicht-technische Fachmann hat Kenntnis von den Möglichkeiten einer Realisierung von geschäftsbezogenen Konzepten auf netzwerkbasierten Computersystemen. Er kannte zum Prioritätszeitpunkt eine Vielzahl von rechner- und netzwerkgestützten geschäftlichen Prozessen (z.B. im Bereich der Zahlungsprozesse, Materialwirtschaft und auch der Versicherungswirtschaft), um eine Vorstellung davon zu haben, was konzeptionell auf einer abstrakten Meta-Ebene realisierbar ist. Was der nicht-technische Fachmann jedoch nicht weiß ist, wie genau eine Implementierung auf dem Computer erfolgt. Dies liegt in der Sphäre des Programmierers, des technischen Fachmanns, und ist bei der Prüfung auf erfinderische Tätigkeit zu berücksichtigen (vgl. T 1082/13, Entscheidungsgründe 4.8).
Sind Merkmale lediglich auf einer abstrakten Meta-Ebene als Module spezifiziert und repräsentieren Funktionen, wie sie der nicht-technische Fachmann in seinem Konzept zugrunde legen würde, so gibt dieser damit auch keine technischen Merkmale vor. Erst durch die Angabe von tatsächlichen Implementierungs­schritten im Anspruch werden diese Module zu technischen Merkmalen qualifiziert (vgl. Entscheidungsgründe 3.10 bis 3.12).

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Amendment not occasioned by a ground for opposition - Reasons point 4.1.1 to 4.1.4

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

No conclusive case has been submitted with the request for re-establishment of rights that explains why an attempt was (erroneously) made to pay the appeal fee using a form that was no longer accepted at the EPO.
Article 122 EPC and the relevant case law does not excuse mistakes by the representative himself or herself that are caused by the ignorance of the latest provisions even if the representative does not normally perform the duty of paying fees himself or herself.
As he or she is the one that is expected to instruct and supervise his or her staff, he or she must always keep informed of the latest developments on how to handle the payment of fees.
As he or she is expected to remember what he or she has learned even in stressful situations it cannot be acknowledged that the mistake has happened despite all due care having been taken.
The situation (stress caused by an upcoming snow storm) cannot be equated with one where a patent attorney was incapable of taking sound decisions due to sudden serious illness or a sudden and unexpected bereavement.

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

A board has in principle no discretion for not admitting late-filed arguments (T
1914/12 followed). However, if a late-filed objection includes new allegations of fact, the board has under Article 114(2) EPC the discretion not to admit it into the proceedings (reasons 2.1 to 2.5, 9.3 to 9.4).

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Rolle des Fachmanns bei ber Neuheitsprüfung (siehe Punkt 7.3 der Entscheidungsgründe)

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Transitional provisions - applicability of Article 13(1) RPBA 2020 to cases where the summons to oral proceedings were notified before the entry into force of the RPBA 2020 (see point 1 of the Reasons)
Form of decision - abridged form in respect of one or more issues (see point 2 of the Reasons)

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

1) When fall-back positions for a feature are described in terms of a list of converging alternatives, the choice of a more or less preferred element from such a list should not be treated as an arbitrary selection, because this choice does not lead to a singling out of an invention from among a plurality of distinct options, but simply to a subject-matter based on a more or less restricted version of said feature.
2) A claim amended on the basis of multiple selections from lists of converging alternatives might be considered to meet the requirements of Article 123(2) EPC if:
- the subject-matter resulting from the multiple selections is not associated with an undisclosed technical contribution, and
- the application as filed includes a pointer to the combination of features resulting from the multiple selections.

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

1. Eine neue Angriffslinie auf die erfinderische Tätigkeit, die als Reaktion und unter Verwendung der von der Patentinhaberin mit der Einspruchserwiderung eingereichten Dokumente verfolgt wird, ist nicht per se als verspätet anzusehen. Sie kann aus Gründen der Waffengleichheit in das Einspruchsverfahren zugelassen werden, auch wenn die Dokumente im Ergebnis nicht relevanter als andere Dokumente sind (Siehe Punkt 1.4.1).
2. Das späte Einreichen von zufällig bekannt gewordenen Entgegenhaltungen ist nicht schon allein deswegen zulässig, weil sie in der japanischen Sprache verfasst sind und deren Auffindbarkeit deswegen unter Umständen erschwert gewesen sein mag. Dies gilt umso mehr, wenn dem Einreichenden die Bedeutung japanischer Unternehmen auf dem fraglichen technischen Gebiet bekannt war und deshalb Veranlassung zu rechtzeitigen umfassenden Recherchen bestand (Siehe Punkt 1.4.2).

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Art. 13(1) RPBA 2020 and Art. 13 RPBA 2007 both apply (Points 1.1 to 1.1.3 of the Reasons); Art. 11 RPBA 2020 - adaptation of the description is not 'further prosecution' (see Point 5 of the Reasons)

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Art. 13(1) RPCR 2020 vis-à-vis Art. 13 RPCR 2007; motifs 7-14

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Einem Anspruch auf eine weitere nicht-medizinische Verwendung kann Neuheit nicht abgesprochen werden, wenn die beanspruchte technische Wirkung des Stoffes und die beanspruchte Verwendungsweise nicht in Kombination im Stand der Technik offenbart sind (Punkt 2.4 der Begründung).

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

See points 3.1 to 3.7.3 of the Reasons

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision