Selected decisions
The list of “Selected decisions” alerts users to all newly published decisions for which a headnote or a catchword has been provided by the board. Usually, a board will add a headnote or catchword if it wishes to provide a brief summary of a particular point of law or to draw attention to an important part of the reasons for the decision. The list contains all decisions with a headnote or catchword published in the last three years and can be viewed by year by selecting the year from the menu on the left.
The list below contains all decisions with a headnote or catchword that have been released for publication in the last six months (newest first).
December 2020
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).
Decision sufficiently reasoned for purposes of the right to be heard (yes)
Petition allowable (no) no violation of petitioner's right to be heard
Erfinderische Tätigkeit - Hauptantrag und Hilfsanträge 1 bis 3 (nein): "subjektive Aufgabe" wird nicht glaubhaft gelöst
Erfinderische Tätigkeit - naheliegende Parametereinstellungen
Unzulässige Erweiterung - Hilfsantrag 4 (ja)
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)
Technical effect - reduced computational load (no - technical, but no embodiment to enable verification)
Inventive step - distributing rewards by assigning users to partial areas of an advertisement banner (yes
Inventive step - involves technical considerations of the web page system)
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)
Inventive step - determining ranges of unit identifiers (no
Inventive step - not technical and obvious)
Inventive step - technical effect of saving storage (no
Inventive step - bonus effect)
Appeal decision - remittal to the department of first instance (no)
Inadmissible extension (yes: main request)
Exclusion of document D20 (no)
Novelty (no: auxiliary request 1)
Admissibility of auxiliary requests 2 to 16 (no)
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).
Sufficiency of disclosure (yes)
Review of a finding of fact of the department of first instance - (yes)
Novelty - (yes)
Inventive step - (yes)
Reimbursement of appeal fee - (no)
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).
Admissibility of appeal - appellant adversely affected despite decision to grant a patent
Approval by paying fee for grant and publishing and filing translations - binding effect
November 2020
Further processing - time limit for requesting further processing
Further processing - request admissible (no)
Admissibility of appeal - party adversely affected by decision (no)
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.
Beschwerdegebühr (nicht vollständig entrichtet) - Beschwerde gilt als nicht eingelegt
ermäßigte Beschwerdegebühr - fehlende Berechtigung
Korrektur des Abbuchungsauftrags (nein)
Grundsatz des Vertrauensschutzes (nein)
Vorlage an die Große Beschwerdekammer (nein)
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).
Amendments - extension beyond the content of the application as filed (yes)
Amendments - intermediate generalisation
added feature not the deliberate result of technical considerations