Selected decisions in 2022

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

1.) Article 69 EPC in conjunction with Article 1 of the Protocol thereto can and should be relied on when interpreting claims and determining the claimed subject-matter in proceedings before the EPO, including for the purpose of assessing compliance with Article 123(2) EPC (Reasons 3.1-3.15).
2.) Although Article 69(1), second sentence, EPC requires that generally account be taken of the description and the drawings when interpreting a claim, the primacy of the claims according to Article 69(1), first sentence, EPC limits the extent to which the meaning of a certain claim feature may be affected by the description and the drawings (Reasons 3.16-3.16.2).
3.) Claim interpretation is overall a question of law which must as such ultimately be answered by the deciding body, and not by linguistic or technical experts. It does, however, involve the appraisal of linguistic and technical facts which may be supported by evidence submitted by the parties (Reasons 3.17).

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Since the initial main request, filed for the first time with the statement of grounds of appeal, would not have been admitted under Article 12(4) RPBA 2007, the objections raised by the board in the communication annexed to the summons to oral proceedings against this initial main request are of a hypothetical nature and do not establish exceptional circumstances referred to in Article 13(2) RPBA 2020 which could justify amending the applicant's appeal case.

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

A similarity [of the claimed subject-matter] to a business or administrative solution is not a sufficient reason for denying a technical contribution of a claim feature applied in a technical context and involving technical considerations. Put another way, technical considerations in the technical context cannot be negated merely on the basis of a non-technical analogy.
... The analogy to a post office, essentially invoked by the contested decision, is used in technical literature in order to describe functionality of the transport layer (layer 4) of the OSI model. However, in the Board's view, it would not be sound to assert, only based on this analogy, that communication protocols implementing this layer's functionality lack technical character.
(See points 3.2.7 and 3.2.8 of the reasons).

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

The principles expressed in Article 12(6) RPBA 2020 for the admittance of non-maintained or non-admitted requests may be considered in the exercise of discretion to admit amendments based on such requests under Article 12(4) RPBA 2020.

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Novelty of selection inventions - selection from a broad range - "gold standard" - see point 3.4

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

The undesired phenomena observed in the patent with the use of the prior art compositions would not inevitably manifest themselves upon the practical implementation of the teaching of the prior art. The recognition of the relevance of these phenomena should therefore be considered to form part of the technical contribution described in the patent. A specific reference in the formulation of the objective technical problem to the avoidance of these phenomena risks to unfairly direct development towards the claimed solution, which is not permissible in line with the principles as developed in the established jurisprudence (see reasons section 4.2.3).

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

1.) Article 114(2) EPC provides a legal basis for disregarding claim requests which are not submitted in due time (Reasons 4.5.1-4.5.11).
2.) A claim request which is filed in opposition proceedings after the date set under Rule 116(1) EPC is not submitted in due time within the meaning of Article 114(2) EPC (Reasons 4.6.1-4.6.10).
3.) Rule 116(2) EPC does not limit the Opposition Division's discretionary power under Article 114(2) EPC and Rule 116(1) EPC. As a rule, this discretionary power does not depend on the contents of the Opposition Division's communication under Rule 116(1) EPC. However, if the Opposition Division invites the patent proprietor to file an amended claim request to address a specific objection and the patent proprietor complies with this invitation by filing the required amendments by the date set under Rule 116(1) EPC, the Opposition Division's discretion not to admit that claim request may effectively be reduced to zero (Reasons 4.7.1-4.7.8).

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

If there is an amendment to the patent in the appeal proceedings which has never been examined before, the Enlarged Board's obiter dictum in G 10/91, Reasons 19, is fully respected when only the prima facie relevance of an objection under Article 123(2) EPC is considered in the context of assessing whether there are exceptional circumstances under Article 13(2) RPBA 2020 (Reasons 2.3.1-2.3.14).

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

siehe Punkt 5.1

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Extension of subject-matter: selection from an indication of equally preferred items (e.g. formed by several independent claims) disclosed in the application as filed (see point 2.4.1 of the Reasons)

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

The appellant argued that the claimed features relating to the abstract business concept neither could have been provided by the business person to the technical expert for programming, nor would the technical expert have corresponding knowledge starting from a networked standard computer system. The appellant thereby alleged that there was to be considered an imaginary third person who came up with the concept of the invention to be implemented on a computer system. The Board notes that when assessing inventive step in the field of computer implemented business related inventions following the COMVIK approach and the corresponding case law, there is no room for such a third expert. When analysing the features of a claim and answering the question of whether they provide a technical contribution, each such feature has to be judged to be either a contribution of the technical expert or of the non-technical business person in order to conclude whether there is an inventive technical contribution. (See point 4.13 of the reasons)

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

1. If a request is not admitted because earlier objections are not overcome, Rule 111(2) EPC requires that these earlier objections be made explicit in the decision (see reasons 3).
2. Non-convergence of requests is, on its own, not a sufficient reason for non-admittance. It must be reasoned that and why non-convergent requests affect procedural economy in view of the particular circumstances of the case (see reasons 4).
3. The purpose of the claims to define the matter for which protection is sought (Article 84 EPC) imparts requirements on the application as a whole, in addition to the express requirements that the claims be clear, concise and supported by the description. The Board deems it to be an elementary requirement of a patent as a legal title that its extent of protection can be determined precisely. Whether this is the case for a specific patent application (or an amended patent) can only be decided with due consideration of the description. Claims and description do not precisely define the matter for which protection is sought if they contradict each other (see reasons 27 to 34).
|

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

The normal rule of claim construction of reading a feature specified in a claim in its broadest technically meaningful sense corresponds to determining the broadest scope encompassed by the subject-matter being claimed according to a technically sensible reading. In the case of a feature defined in a positive manner, which imposes the presence of a specific element, this is effectively achieved by giving to the element in question its broadest technically sensible meaning. However, for a feature defined in a negative manner, which excludes the presence of a specific element, the broadest scope of the claim corresponds to the narrowest (i.e. most limited) technically sensible definition of the element to be excluded. (Reasons, point 5.7)

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Since the problem and solution approach defines the problem based on the effect of the differences from the closest prior art, and the effect is derived primarily from the disclosure of the invention, the effect documented in the present documents alone is taken as the basis for the problem formulation. The Board concluded that any further, undocumented effects would be speculative and should not be additionally included in the problem formulation (reasons 5.3.2)

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

The requirement that the claims are to be supported by the description under Article 84, second sentence, EPC does not necessarily mean that all the "embodiments" of the description of a patent application have to be covered by the (independent) claims, i.e. that all the embodiments must fall within the scope of those claims (see point 6.2.2 of the Reasons).

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

If the only feature that distinguishes a claim from the closest prior art is a range of an unusual parameter and it is concluded that it would be obvious for the skilled person to solve the underlying technical problem in ways that can be presumed to inherently lead to values within or close to the claimed range, it is the proprietor who should bear the burden of proof to demonstrate that implementing such solutions would not lead to the claimed parametrical range.

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

In the Board's judgement it is part of the non-technical requirement specification to keep keys (be it analog or electronic keys) away from people one does not trust. This does not require technical considerations of a technically skilled person. The Board does not consider this to be a technical difference, but to be an administrative consideration within the sphere of a business person when contemplating a secure tender process. It is not regarded as a technical innovation, but a natural choice for the bidders to use individual keys, keep the keys back as long as possible and furnish them as late as possible. And even if this was considered technical, it would, in the Board's view, be obvious to do so.
Furthermore, the Board considers that implementing a functionality in the networked e-tender system corresponding to D1 would be, at the claimed level of generality, obvious in view of the above business related requirement specification. The Board notes that the implementation is claimed in functional terms and neither the claim nor the application as a whole provide details on how encryption/decryption is achieved on a technical level. The application apparently relies in this respect on the skilled person's common general knowledge. The Board notes in this regard that if providing necessary software and data structures were beyond the skilled person's skills, the invention would not be sufficiently disclosed (Article 83 EPC).
Even if the appellant is correct that using different keys for different bidders is a difference over D1, this would in the Board's view imply - in the light of bidders creating their own individual keys for unlocking/decrypting being obvious - that the keys of different bidders are different, too. Therefore creating individual keys/pass-phrases would inherently require the use of multiple keys for implementation.
(See points 4.2 to 4.4 of the reasons)

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Admittance of objections raised in appeal, said objections having been raised before the opposition division against a different claim request (point 4.3 of the Reasons)

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

While a feature might, in certain contexts, be seen as technical, the technical effect of a feature must be assessed as a whole and in the context of the claimed invention (reasons 2.7.4).

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

If non-technical features have both a technical and a non-technical effect, the technical effect must be taken into account when assessing inventive step, but the technical effect must be clearly derivable from the application as a whole (Reasons 3.6.4 (1)).

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

As ruled in decision G 1/10, Rule 140 EPC is not available to correct patents. G 1/10 does not restrict the scope of the exclusion of the applicability of the rule in any way.

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

1. If the deletion of dependent claims after notification of a summons to oral proceedings enhances procedural economy by clearly overcoming existing objections without giving rise to any new issues this might constitute cogent reasons justifying exceptional circumstances in the sense of Article 13(2) RPBA 2020.
2. For a first medical use of a substance or composition according to Article 54(4) EPC to be sufficiently disclosed it is not required to show the suitability for each and every disease, but it usually suffices to show that at least one medical use is credibly achieved.

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Inventive step objection based on hindsight: arguments involving a convoluted set of sequential steps conceived starting from the claimed subject-matter and working backwards in attempt to bridge the gap with the prior art (Reasons 1.27)

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

see point 1.2.2 of the reasons

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

The yardstick for determining whether the position of an appellant is, because of its own appeal, worsened in a way which is incompatible with the principle of the prohibition of reformatio in peius is the order of the decision under appeal, in particular the order's legal effect on the appellant.
If an opposition is considered inadmissible in the appeal proceedings, an appellant whose opposition was rejected in the decision under appeal as unallowable would not be in a worse position than if it had not appealed, as in both cases the patent would be maintained as granted. The legal reasons leading to this result, including whether the opposition is rejected as inadmissible or unallowable, do not fall within the scope of the principle of the prohibition of reformatio in peius (Reasons 3.5).

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

If the opponent is the sole appellant against an interlocutory decision maintaining a patent in amended form, an objection related to the inadmissibility of the opposition is subject to the principle of the prohibition of reformatio in peius. In such a procedural situation, the Board is prohibited from ordering the maintenance of the patent as granted due to the inadmissibility of the opposition (Reasons 3.19).

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

According to the Comvik approach the non-technical features of a claim may be incorporated into a goal to be achieved in a non-technical field. Subsequently, the approach invokes what might be described as the legal fiction that this goal, including the claimed non-technical features, would be presented to the skilled person, who would be charged with the task of technically implementing a solution which would achieve the stated goal. The question whether the skilled person would "arrive" at the non-technical features does not therefore arise, as these features have been made known to the skilled person, as part of the goal to be achieved. The relevant question for the assessment of inventive step is whether it would be obvious for the skilled person to implement a technical solution corresponding to the claimed subject-matter (Reasons, point 3.12).

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

As to the divergence in the jurisprudence of the Boards of Appeal concerning the notion of an "amendment" within the meaning of Article 12(4) RPBA 2020, see point 2.4 of the Reasons.

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

A machine is not an inventor within the meaning of the EPC

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Different interpretation of Article 109(1) EPC from that provided for in the Guidelines for Examination in the EPO - application of Article
20(2) RPBA 2020 (see point 2.4.3 of the Reasons).

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Le fait que la chambre ait retenu un argument nouveau (absence d'effet technique clairement identifiable) dans la chaîne argumentaire conduisant au constat provisoire d'absence d'activité inventive ne saurait être ignoré. Il justifie
que les requêtes qui visent et se limitent à remédier à cette objection soient admises.

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

In a case where the patent is not opposed in its entirety, the opposition being directed at certain claims only, and where the Opposition Division decides that all of the proprietor's requests in relation to the opposed claims must fail, only the unopposed claims, which are not part of any opposition proceedings, are left standing.
Hence, provided the requirements of Rule 82(1) EPC are met (either during oral proceedings or, in a written procedure, by means of a separate communication), the patent may be maintained on the basis of the unopposed claims, irrespective of whether the proprietor has filed an explicit request for this during the proceedings. Such a request would, in fact, be superfluous, since the unopposed claims have been granted and are not the subject of any opposition. The unopposed claims of the granted patent are therefore always available to the proprietor as the minimum basis on which the patent may be maintained (Reasons, point 5.2).

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

When a video retrieved from the internet is used as prior-art evidence for refusing a patent application, its content, in a form suitable for reviewing the decision, and metadata evidence demonstrating when and how it was made available to the public should be preserved and made accessible over time to interested parties and judicial bodies.

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

1.) Im Beschwerdeverfahren bestehen Beschränkungen neuen Vorbringens sowohl durch die Rechtsprechung der Großen Beschwerdekammer in G 10/91, G 1/95 und G 7/95 zur Berücksichtigung neuer Einspruchsgründe, als auch durch die den Kammern in Artikel 114 (2) EPÜ und der Verfahrensordnung der Beschwerdekammern eingeräumte Möglichkeit, verspätetes Vorbringen nicht zuzulassen. Diese Beschränkungen bestehen unabhängig voneinander und wirken kumulativ (Nr. 4.5 der Gründe).
2.) Vorbringen, das nicht auf die in der Beschwerdebegründung oder Erwiderung enthaltenen Anträge, Tatsachen, Einwände, Argumente und Beweismittel gerichtet ist, bewirkt eine Änderung des Beschwerdevorbringens im Sinne des Artikel 13 (2) VOBK (J 14/19, Nr. 1.4 der Gründe). In diesem Zusammenhang stellt sowohl eine neue Kombination von Tatsachenelementen (z.B. die Wahl einer anderen Entgegenhaltung oder einer anderen Textstelle einer Entgegenhaltung als Ausgangspunkt für einen Einwand erfinderischer Tätigkeit) als auch eine neue Kombination von Tatsachen- und Rechtselementen (z.B. die Bezugnahme auf ein Dokument oder eine Textstelle in einem anderen rechtlichen Zusammenhang) eine Änderung des Beschwerdevorbringens dar. Ein in der mündlichen Verhandlung vor der Beschwerdekammer erstmals vorgetragener Einwand mangelnder erfinderischer Tätigkeit ausgehend von einer Entgegenhaltung, die zuvor lediglich Gegenstand eines Neuheitseinwandes war, stellt somit regelmäßig eine Änderung des Beschwerdevorbringens gemäß Artikel 13 (2) VOBK 2020 dar (Nr. 4.9 der Gründe).

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Modification des moyens selon l'article 13(2) RPCR ; recevabilité de requêtes dans lesquelles certaines revendications indépendantes sont supprimées ; échelonnement des requêtes subsidiaires déposées tout au long de la procédure de recours qui donne lieu à une approche "par tâtonnements" ou une tactique par élimination (tactique du "salami") (voir points 2 et 3 des motifs).

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Artikel 12(4) VOBK 2020 enthält keine Einschränkung dahin, dass sich jede Partei in der Beschwerde nur auf diejenigen Gegenstände des Vorverfahrens beziehen dürfte, die sie selbst dort "in zulässiger Weise vorgebracht" hat. Daher erscheint es legitim, sich auch auf Angriffslinien zu beziehen, die von anderen Beteiligten ins Einspruchsverfahren eingeführt worden waren. Geschieht dies, liegt insoweit daher keine zulassungsbedürftige Änderung des Vorbringens vor (siehe Punkt 4.4).

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

A request not to admit a certain document, this request having been filed for the first time during oral proceedings before the board, may constitute an amendment of the appeal case the admittance of which is governed by Article 13(2) RPBA 2020 (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

A machine is not an inventor within the meaning of the EPC

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

In order to substantiate an objection in the appeal proceedings which the Opposition Division did not consider convincing, it is necessary to provide specific reasons why the finding and the reasoning in the decision under appeal is supposedly incorrect with regard to this objection (Reasons 2.2.2-2.2.11).
As a rule, in appeal proceedings general references to submissions made in the proceedings before the departments of first instance are not taken into account due to a lack of substantiation. Attaching the notice of opposition to the statement of grounds of appeal is to be considered equivalent to such a general reference to previous submissions (Reasons 2.2.13-2.2.14). An objection is to be considered to have been validly submitted only at the time on which sufficient substantiation is provided (Reasons 2.2.17).

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Amendment of a set of claims by deletion of claims. Admittance of said amended set of claims pursuant to Article 13(2) RPBA 2020: see points 3.1 to 3.16 of the Reasons for the Decision.

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Improved patient compliance to a pharmaceutical formulation cannot be used to establish an overall technical effect if it is the result of a "broken technical chain", namely an alleged chain of technical effects starting with information provided to a patient which is then broken by the patient's mental activities (see points 2.4 and 2.5).

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Novelty - purity: decision T 1085/13 followed

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Änderung eines Anspruchssatzes durch Streichung von Ansprüchen. Zur Frage seiner Zulassung unter Artikel 13 (2) RPBA 2020 siehe Entscheidungsgründe Nr. 3.4.1 bis 3.4.14.

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Berichtigung der Erklärung betreffend die Methode für die Entrichtung der Beschwerdegebühr im Formblatt 1038
- Ermittelung der ursprünglichen Absicht bei der Auswahl der Zahlungsmethode, siehe Entscheidungsgründe 6.4

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

1. A request for reimbursement of the appeal fee under Rule 103(1)(a) EPC can no longer be filed after the department of first instance has granted interlocutory revision (Reasons 2).
2. If the department of first instance grants interlocutory revision only to refine the written reasons which already complied with Rule 111(2) EPC, this may constitute a substantial procedural violation (Reasons 1).
3. Such a substantial procedural violation may justify the reimbursement under Rule 103(1)(a) of the appeal fee paid for a subsequent appeal (Reasons 3.1 and 3.2).

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Headnote

Non-unity of invention

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Neuheitsschädlich sind nur solche Vorrichtungen, deren offenbarte Merkmale all jene der Erfindung vorwegnehmen, einschließlich etwaiger Strukturen und Funktionalitäten, die durch ein Verfahrensmerkmal bedingt sind.
Wenn eine Vorrichtung ihre beanspruchte Funktionalität im Zusammenwirken mit einer nicht mitbeanspruchten Gegenstruktur entfalten kann, so ist auch diese Erfindung nur neuheitsschädlich vorweggenommen, wenn ihre strukturellen und funktionalen Merkmale bereits vor dem Anmeldetag unmittelbar und eindeutig offenbart worden sind.
Auch wenn die Gegenstruktur nicht mitbeansprucht ist, erscheint es im Rahmen der Prüfung von Artikel 54 EPÜ unzulässig, sich eine beliebige Struktur auszudenken, die für die Erreichung der Funktionalität eingesetzt werden könnte, wenn eine solche im Stand der Technik nirgends auch nur ansatzweise gezeigt ist.
(Siehe Gründe 3.5 bis 4.2)

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Ablehnung wegen Besorgnis der Befangenheit
- Zum notwendigen Inhalt einer dienstlichen Äußerung gemäß Artikel 3 (2) VOBK 2020 (Ziffer 1.4.3).
- Die Stellung eines Antrags und die Einlassung zur Sache sind Verfahrenshandlungen im Sinne von Artikel 24 (3) Satz 2 EPÜ (Ziffer 1.5.2).
- Ein Spruchkörper ist nicht generell verpflichtet, in der mündlichen Verhandlung Erklärungen oder Begründungen für die Auffassung der Kammer zu geben. Das Fehlen einer solchen Begründung rechtfertigt in der Regel nicht die Besorgnis der Befangenheit (Ziffer 2.3.1).
- Die Einleitung der durch ein Beratungsergebnis bedingten notwendigen weiteren Verfahrensschritte rechtfertigt nicht die Besorgnis der Befangenheit (Ziffer 2.3.2).

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Statements in the description contradicting the plain claim wording may cast doubts as to the intended meaning of this wording. Under such circumstances an objection under Article 84 EPC has to be raised.

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

If a party considers that the "essentials of the oral proceedings" or "relevant statements" within the meaning of Rule 124(1) EPC are incorrect or missing in the minutes of oral proceedings, they must file a request for correction of the minutes in the shortest time possible after their receipt. This ensures that the relevant facts and submissions are still fresh in the minds of the members of the deciding body and, if applicable, the other party or parties (Reasons 9.2).
Waiting for the written decision before submitting a request for correction of the minutes is incompatible with a party's obligation to request correction of the minutes in the shortest time possible after their receipt (Reasons 9.3).

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

An encoding or compression algorithm contributes to the technical character of the claimed compression method if it is used for the purpose of reducing the amount of data to be stored or transmitted (reasons 7).

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

"Exceptional circumstances" in Rule 13(2) RPBA interpreted as those that compromise neither the procedural rights of the other party, nor procedural economy.

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Reasons 7

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

As to the application of the problem-solution approach, in particular the determination of the objective technical problem and the choice of the "second document", see
points 6.3.2 and 6.3.4 of the Reasons.

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

1. The Guidelines, Part E, Chapter XI, set out the procedure whereby the reasons of a responsible superior's decision rejecting a challenge to the impartiality of a division can be appealed. This procedure does not make the responsible superior's decision formally appealable (Reasons 2.3 and 2.4)
2. The unexplained omission of the reasons of the responsible superior's decision from the final decision of the division justifies the suspicion of partiality and constitutes a substantial procedural violation (Reasons 2.9 and 2.15)
3. The principle of the prohibition of "reformatio in peius" is not applicable where a case is to be remitted to a division in a new composition because of a suspicion of partiality (Reasons 5.5 and 5.6)

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Der Großen Beschwerdekammer werden folgende Rechtsfragen vorgelegt:
1. Kann eine europäische Patentanmeldung nach Artikel 97 (2) EPÜ zurückgewiesen werden, wenn sie denselben Gegenstand beansprucht wie ein demselben Anmelder erteiltes europäisches Patent, das nicht zum Stand der Technik nach Artikel 54 (2) und (3) EPÜ gehört?
2.1 Wenn die erste Frage bejaht wird, welches sind dann die Bedingungen für eine solche Zurückweisung, und gelten unterschiedliche Bedingungen je nachdem, ob die zu prüfende europäische Patentanmeldung
a) am Anmeldetag oder
b) als europäische Teilanmeldung (Artikel 76 (1) EPÜ) zu oder
c) unter Inanspruchnahme der Priorität (Artikel 88 EPÜ) einer europäischen Patentanmeldung eingereicht wurde, auf deren Grundlage demselben Anmelder ein europäisches Patent erteilt wurde?
2.2 Hat insbesondere im letztgenannten Fall ein Anmelder ein legitimes Interesse an der Erteilung eines Patents auf die (spätere) europäische Patentanmeldung, weil nach Artikel 63 (1) EPÜ der Anmeldetag und nicht der Prioritätstag maßgeblich für die Berechnung der Laufzeit des europäischen Patents ist?

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

The following questions are referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal:
1. Can a European patent application be refused under Article 97(2) EPC if it claims the same subject-matter as a European patent which was granted to the same applicant and does not form part of the state of the art pursuant to Article 54(2) and (3) EPC?
2.1 If the answer to the first question is yes, what are the conditions for such a refusal, and are different conditions to be applied depending on whether the European patent application under examination was filed
a) on the same date as, or
b) as a European divisional application (Article 76(1) EPC) in respect of, or
c) claiming the priority (Article 88 EPC) in respect of a European patent application on the basis of which a European patent was granted to the same applicant?
2.2 In particular, in the last of these cases, does an applicant have a legitimate interest in the grant of a patent on the (subsequent) European patent application in view of the fact that the filing date and not the priority date is the relevant date for calculating the term of the European patent under Article 63(1) EPC?

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Les questions suivantes sont soumises à la Grande Chambre de recours :
1. Une demande de brevet européen peut-elle être rejetée au titre de l'article 97(2) CBE si elle revendique le même objet qu'un brevet européen qui a été délivré au même demandeur et n'est pas compris dans l'état de la technique au sens de l'article 54(2) et (3) CBE ?
2.1 S'il est répondu par l'affirmative à la première question, quelles sont les conditions d'un tel rejet et faut-il appliquer des conditions différentes suivant que la demande de brevet européen faisant l'objet de l'examen :
a) a été déposée à la même date qu'une demande de brevet européen sur la base de laquelle un brevet européen a été délivré au même demandeur,
b) a été déposée en tant que demande divisionnaire européenne (article 76(1) CBE) relative à une telle demande, ou
c) revendique la priorité d'une telle demande (article 88 CBE) ?
2.2 En particulier, dans ce dernier cas, un demandeur a-t-il un intérêt légitime à obtenir la délivrance d'un brevet sur la base de la demande de brevet européen (ultérieure) étant donné que la date déterminante pour calculer la durée du brevet européen en vertu de l'article 63(1) CBE est la date de dépôt et non la date de priorité ?

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Stützung der Ansprüche durch die Beschreibung, s. Punkt 3.3.5

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

If an abstract feature is not defined in more concrete terms either in the relevant claim or in the description of the application, it has to be understood in a broad sense. This may be important when assessing the implicit disclosure of a document of the state of the art. In particular, for this assessment it may be irrelevant whether there are several alternatives for implementing the abstract feature in concrete terms (Reasons 2.3.7).

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Headnote

1. Eine europäische Patentanmeldung kann nach den Artikeln 97 (2) und 125 EPÜ zurückgewiesen werden, wenn sie denselben Gegenstand beansprucht wie ein demselben Anmelder erteiltes europäisches Patent, das nicht zum Stand der Technik nach Artikel 54 (2) und (3) EPÜ gehört.
2. Die Anmeldung kann auf dieser Rechtsgrundlage zurückgewiesen werden, unabhängig davon, ob sie
a) am Anmeldetag oder
b) als frühere Anmeldung oder Teilanmeldung (Artikel 76 (1) EPÜ) zu oder
c) unter Inanspruchnahme der Priorität (Artikel 88 EPÜ) der europäischen Patentanmeldung eingereicht worden ist, die zu dem bereits erteilten europäischen Patent geführt hat.

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Headnote

1. Une demande de brevet européen peut être rejetée au titre des articles 97(2) et 125 CBE si elle revendique le même objet qu'un brevet européen qui a été délivré au même demandeur et n'est pas compris dans l'état de la technique au sens de l'article 54(2) et (3) CBE.
2. La demande en question peut être rejetée sur cette base juridique, indépendamment de la question de savoir
a) si elle a été déposée à la même date que la demande de brevet européen à l'origine du brevet européen déjà délivré, ou
b) si elle constitue une demande antérieure ou une demande divisionnaire (article 76(1) CBE) relative à une telle demande, ou encore
c) si elle revendique la même priorité (article 88 CBE) qu'une telle demande.

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

L'impossibilité d'utiliser un tableau blanc ou un « flip chart » physiques lors d'une procédure orale tenue par visioconférence ne viole pas le droit d'une partie d'être entendue selon l'article 113 CBE (point 9.5.8 des motifs).
La conformité d'une procédure orale sous forme de visioconférence avec le droit d'une partie d'être entendue selon l'article 113 CBE ne dépend pas de l'accord de cette partie à ce que la procédure orale se tienne par visioconférence mais uniquement du fait si cette partie a suffisamment la possibilité de prendre position et de présenter son cas (point 10.8 des motifs).

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Ein nach der Ladung zur mündlichen Verhandlung eingereichter neuer Hilfsantrag, der nur noch einen bereits im von der Einspruchsabteilung aufrechterhaltenen Hauptantrag enthaltenen unabhängigen Verfahrensanspruch enthält, während alle anderen vorrangigen (Produkt-)Ansprüche gestrichen wurden, kann dann nicht als grundsätzlich unberücksichtigt bleibende Änderung des Beschwerdevorbringens im Sinne des Artikels 13(2) VOBK 2020 angesehen werden, wenn das bisherige Vorbringen der Beteiligten bereits eine hinreichende Grundlage zur Entscheidung über den neuen Hilfsantrag bietet (abweichend von T
2091/18, vgl. Punkt 5 der Gründe).

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

The PCT Assembly may be considered the legislator for the PCT Regulations. See reasons 16.
"Understandings" of the PCT Assembly expressed in relation to a newly amended rule together with the adoption of this rule are an expression of the legislator's intention. See reasons 17 and 18.
The delegates of the PCT Contracting States in the PCT Assembly agreed, in the "understandings" related to R. 49ter.2(b)(i) PCT, on how this rule should be applied. As an act of authentic interpretation by the legislator this agreement may be taken into account when assessing the context for
the purpose of interpreting the new provision
. See reasons
19.
In the case in hand, when applying R. 49ter.2(b)(i) PCT in the light of the understandings of the PCT Assembly, the request and the payment for restoration of the right of priority were made in time. See reasons 23.

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

I. A debit order has to be interpreted on its substance, according to the (objectively) clear intention of the appellant expressed therein to pay a fee in the applicable amount.
II. Under the Arrangements for deposit accounts valid as from 1 December 2017 (ADA 2017), a debit order having the clear purpose of paying a particular fee (here: the appeal fee) authorises the EPO to debit that fee in the applicable amount.

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Application of decision G 1/19 to
- simulation methods (Reasons, point 2)
- design methods (Reasons, point 4)
- measurement methods (Reasons, point 7)

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

The Boards of Appeal may review discretionary decisions. There are, however, limits on the extent of review that reflect the discretion accorded to the deciding body. In the present case, the Opposition Division decided to consider document D8 and the review of this decision is a primary object of the appeal proceedings (Article 12(2) RPBA 2020) - see Reasons 1 - 9.

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

If a request for oral proceedings is withdrawn after a date for oral proceedings has been set but before the notification of a communication issued in preparation for the oral proceedings, the withdrawal occurs "within one month of notification" for the purpose of Rule 103(4)(c) EPC.

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

While objections raised by the Board for the first time in a communication under Article 15(1) RPBA 2020 may be considered to give rise to exceptional circumstances within the meaning of Article 13(2) RPBA 2020, and may possibly justify the filing of amendments which specifically respond to the new objections, this does not open the door to additional amendments which are unrelated to the new objections, and for which no exceptional circumstances exist (Reasons, point 3.10).

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Zur Notwendigkeit einer rechtzeitigen Replik:
1. Unter der seit 1. Januar 2020 geltenden Verfahrensordnung der Beschwerdekammern (VOBK 2020) obliegt es den Parteien, ihren Vortrag so rechtzeitig im Verfahren zu bringen, dass die Beschwerdekammer ihn bereits bei Abfassung des Ladungsbescheids berücksichtigen kann.
2. Soweit die Beschwerdeführerin einen Teil ihres Vortrags nicht, wie es Artikel 12 Abs. 3 VOBK 2020 eigentlich fordert, bereits in der Beschwerdebegründung unterbreiten kann, weil es sich um die Antwort auf Angriffe bzw. Hilfsanträge handelt, die nicht bereits Gegenstand der angegriffenen Entscheidung waren, sondern von der Beschwerdegegnerin in der Beschwerdeerwiderung unterbreitet wurden, stellt eine Replik hierauf für die Beschwerdeführerin das geeignete Mittel der Wahl dar, um ihre Antwort rechtzeitig vorzubringen. Gerade aus diesem Grund sieht Artikel 15 (1) VOBK 2020 vor, dass die Kammer sich bemüht, nicht früher als zwei Monate nach Erhalt der Beschwerdeerwiderung (gemäß Artikel 12 (1) c) VOBK 2020) die Ladung zu versenden.
3. Das Argument, es sei nicht zumutbar, Kaskaden von Argumentationslinien im Hinblick auf jede denkbare Einschätzung der Kammer vortragen zu müssen, greift nicht. Im zweiseitigen Beschwerdeverfahren trifft die Parteien die Pflicht zur sorgfältigen und beförderlichen Verfahrensführung, aus Gründen der Fairness gegenüber der anderen Partei, aber auch um das Verfahren innerhalb einer angemessenen Verfahrensdauer zum Abschluss zu bringen. Artikel 13 (2) VOBK 2020 sanktioniert diese Pflicht zur Verfahrensförderung.
4. Das Argument der Beschwerdeführerin, es sei der Kammer und auch der Patentinhaberin zumutbar, sich in der mündlichen Verhandlung mit der Diskussion eines einfachen neuen Sachverhaltes zu beschäftigen, lässt den Einfluss auf den weiteren Verfahrensverlauf außer Acht. Die erstmalige Diskussion einer Argumentationslinie in der mündlichen Verhandlung mag zu einer Situation führen, in der die andere Partei ihre Verteidigungslinie erstmalig in der mündlichen Verhandlung überdenken und ggf. anpassen muss, was zu einer deutlichen Verzögerung des Verfahrens führen und eine sachgerechte Entscheidung in der mündlichen Verhandlung erschweren oder unmöglich machen kann.

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Gründe 3

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Die Verbesserung der Nutzerzufriedenheit z. B. bei einer TV-Live-Übertragung ist im Allgemeinen eine nicht-technische, administrative Aufgabe, für die üblicherweise ein TV-Stationsmanager als Fachperson zuständig ist (siehe Gründe 5.6 der Entscheidung).

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Necessity to adapt the description (Reasons 3)

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

In case T 625/11, the board concluded that the determination, as a limit value, of the value of a first operating parameter conferred a technical character to the claim which went beyond the mere interaction between the numerical simulation algorithm and the computer system. The nature of the parameter thus identified was, in fact, "intimately linked to" the operation of a nuclear reactor, independently of whether the parameter was actually used in a nuclear reactor (T 625/11, Reasons 8.4).
The board is of the opinion that, in the case at hand, no technical effect is achieved by the method's functionality as the method merely produces a test rod pattern (i.e. a fuel bundle configuration) design and data "indicative of limits that were violated by the proposed test rod pattern design during the simulation".
Contrary to case T 625/11, no parameter is identified that is "intimately linked to" the operation of a nuclear reactor.
A rod pattern design appears to have non-technical uses such as for study purposes. These are "relevant uses other than the use with a technical device", and therefore a technical effect is not achieved over substantially the whole scope of the claimed invention (G 1/19, points 94 and 95).
The data "indicative of limits that were violated by the proposed test rod pattern design during the simulation" do even not, or at least do not entirely, reflect the physical behaviour of a real system underlying the simulation (see G 1/19, point 128).
The board notes that, due to the breadth of the wording of claim 1 of the main request, the obtained rod pattern design might violate any number of limits by an almost unlimited amount.
Hence, this is not an "exceptional case" in which calculated effects can be considered implied technical effects (see decision G 1/19, points 94, 95 and 128).

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Während eine Fachperson im Allgemeinen Dokumente nicht kombinieren würde, wenn dies zu einem Verzicht auf eine wesentliche Funktion der Erfindung im nächstliegenden Stand der Technik führen würde, gilt dies in der Regel nicht für Kombinationen, bei denen ein wesentliches Merkmal durch ein dieselbe Funktion erfüllendes alternatives Merkmal ersetzt wird (Punkte 1.3.2 und 1.3.3 der Gründe).

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

1. An opposition division's rejection of a request for extension of the time limit indicated in its communication under Rule 79(1) EPC does not terminate the opposition proceedings. Therefore, a patent proprietor is in a position to respond to the notice of opposition beyond the expired time limit or, at least, request the rejection of the opposition as well as oral proceedings. The patent proprietor must anticipate that an opposition division may issue its decision after expiration of the time limit (see Reasons 4.5, 4.6 and 4.9).
2. There is no legal basis for a duty on the part of the opposition division to notify the patent proprietor in advance of its intention to reach a decision, even if that decision concerns the revocation of the patent (see Reasons 4.8, 4.10 and 4.11).
3. If a patent proprietor chooses not to file any submissions during the opposition proceedings but to present them only with its statement of grounds of appeal, this amounts to bringing an entirely fresh case in appeal proceedings. This is at odds with the primary object of the appeal proceedings to review the decision under appeal in a judicial manner. Consequently, a board has the discretion under Article 12(4) RPBA 2007 not to admit the patent proprietor's defence submissions into the appeal proceedings. This does, however, not necessarily lead to revocation of the patent. The decision under appeal is still to be reviewed by the board, which might overturn the impugned decision, for example if it is not convinced by the reasons given by the opposition division or in the event of a substantial procedural violation (see Reasons 5.5 and 5.6).

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

The appellant's wish for the Board to define criteria that the examining division should use to prove that a feature is not technical is tantamount to defining the term technical, which the Boards have consistently declined to do. However, as stated in e.g. T 2314/16 - Distributing rewards/RAKUTEN at points 2.6 to 2.8, over the years the case law has provided guidance on the issue of technicality. Recently, the Board has tended to use the framework for discussion given in the CardinalCommerce decision (T 1463/11 - Universal merchant platform/CardinalCommerce) to help classify whether borderline features of a claim are on the technical or the non-technical side.
It is thus clear that some discussion can and ought to take place. However, rather like objections against added subject-matter, one is essentially trying to prove a negative which tends to be a rather short exercise. On the other hand, the appellant is trying to prove a positive which involves more argument. Thus an objection from the division should probably start with a prima facie assertion that the feature in question is non-technical, perhaps because it is in one of the exclusions listed in Article 52(2) EPC, or a related or analogous field. If this is uncontested then this would be enough. However the Board considers that it is then up to the appellant to provide arguments why there is a technical effect or that some technical considerations are involved. The division should consider these arguments and give reasons why they are not convincing. As mentioned above, the Board is satisfied that this happened in the present case.
One final piece of advice for examining divisions would be where possible to search for and start from a document that already discloses some of the alleged non-technical features, thus avoiding the discussion for these features (see for example, T 756/06 - Displaying a schedule/FUJITSU, point 5 or T 368/05 - Integrated account/CITIBANK, point 8).
(See points 3.3 to 3.5 of the reasons)

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

The business person sets the framework of the problem to be solved by their business model (insurance conditions) and thus reduces - by setting specific boundary conditions - the degrees of freedom of the skilled computer specialist. The technically skilled person, who has to solve the objective technical problem of implementation, therefore has no latitude in selecting the corresponding (physical) parameters (reasons 3.6.10).

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

However, the question is whether the mere idea of mapping this acceleration data to gait category is technical, involving any technical considerations or having any overall technical effect. This question arises in many inventions that involve mappings and algorithms.
In T 1798/13 (Forecasting the value of a structured financial product/SWISS REINSURANCE COMPANY LTD), points 2.7 to 2.9, the present Board essentially held that it was not enough that an algorithm makes use of a technical quantity in the form of a measured physical parameter (weather data). What matters is whether the algorithm reflects any additional technical considerations about the parameter, such as its measurement. In that case there were none. This was contrasted with T 2079/10 (Steuerung von zellulär aufgebauten Alarmsystemen/SWISSRE) where the invention was seen to lie in the improvement of the measurement technique itself, which involved technical considerations about the sensors and their positions.
Such a situation is conceivable in the present case, if the algorithm were to somehow enhance the input data using considerations of e.g. the placement of the sensors. However, the claim only specifies that the data "includes a time series of acceleration vectors" and that this data is "analyzed". There are no further details that could constitute technical considerations about the data or the sensors.
(See points 2.11 to 2.13 of the reasons)

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

That a "new" objection was raised by a board in appeal proceedings
cannot
per se
amount to "exceptional circumstances" within the meaning of Article 13(2) RPBA 2020 (see point 4.3 of the Reasons).

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Reasons 6.2 to 6.4

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Notification of the statement of grounds of appeal is not a Rule 100(2) EPC communication (Reasons 1.4)
Article 13(2) RPBA - "in principle" (Reasons 2.1)

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

The identification of potential problems of an idea in a prior art document does not necessarily prejudice the public availability of this idea.

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

The requirement under Article 12(2) RPBA 2007 to present a complete case does not imply that an appellant/opponent, impugning a decision to maintain a patent in granted or amended form, has to raise objections against all dependent claims (point 4.2 of the reasons).

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Public availability of a master's thesis, see point 3.1 of the reasons.

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

If a claim is unduly broadened with respect to the scope of the examples used to illustrate a technical effect, particularly when this broadening concerns the feature/s allegedly providing that effect, the burden of proof might shift back to the proprietor to prove that the effect observed in the examples would also be obtained throughout the entire scope of the claims. If no evidence is provided in this respect, a conclusion may have to be drawn on the basis of plausibility arguments (reasons 2.2.5-2.2.7).

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Case Law of the Boards of Appeal, 9th edition, 2019, III.C.4.3.2

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Entscheidungsgründe 4

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

The respondent's requests regarding the ground for opposition under Article 100 c) EPC confront the Board with the issue of admittance of a new ground for opposition which was raised during the oral proceedings before the opposition division but had deliberately not been decided upon by the opposition division. In the absence of a positive decision on admittance by the opposition division, the Board considers that the ground for opposition under Article 100 c) EPC should be treated as a fresh ground at the appeal stage and its admittance should be governed by the principles set forth in G 10/91, which require the proprietor's consent for its introduction in the appeal proceedings. In view of the appellant's refusal thereto, the ground for opposition under Article 100 c) is not to be introduced in the appeal proceedings.

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

The following questions are referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal:
I. Does the EPC confer jurisdiction on the EPO to determine whether a party validly claims to be a successor in title as referred to in Article 87(1)(b) EPC?
II. If question I is answered in the affirmative
Can a party B validly rely on the priority right claimed in a PCT-application for the purpose of claiming priority rights under Article 87(1) EPC
in the case where
1) a PCT-application designates party A as applicant for the US only and party B as applicant for other designated States, including regional European patent protection and
2) the PCT-application claims priority from an earlier patent application that designates party A as the applicant and
3) the priority claimed in the PCT-application is in compliance with Article 4 of the Paris Convention?

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

The following questions are referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal:
I. Does the EPC confer jurisdiction on the EPO to determine whether a party validly claims to be a successor in title as referred to in Article 87(1)(b) EPC?
II. If question I is answered in the affirmative
Can a party B validly rely on the priority right claimed in a PCT-application for the purpose of claiming priority rights under Article 87(1) EPC
in the case where
1) a PCT-application designates party A as applicant for the US only and party B as applicant for other designated States, including regional European patent protection and
2) the PCT-application claims priority from an earlier patent application that designates party A as the applicant and
3) the priority claimed in the PCT-application is in compliance with Article 4 of the Paris Convention?

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Weder Artikel 13(2) VOBK 2020 noch die erläuternden Bemerkungen dazu in CA/3/19 enthalten eine Erklärung, wie allgemein zu bestimmen ist, ob die Umstände "außergewöhnlich" sind. Die Erläuterungen der VOBK 2020 nennen als Beispiel für solche "außergewöhnlichen" Umstände allerdings den Fall, dass die Kammer einen Einwand erstmals in einer Mitteilung erhoben hat. In diesem Fall rechtfertige die veränderte Grundlage des Beschwerdeverfahrens ein verändertes Vorbringen. Die Frage, ob umgekehrt durch geändertes Vorbringen auch die Grundlage des Beschwerdeverfahrens verändert wird, stellt somit ein mögliches Kriterium dar, das für die Beurteilung der Außergewöhnlichkeit der Umstände heranzuziehen ist (Punkt 6.3 der Entscheidungsgründe).

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

A disclosure within a prior art document can only be considered to represent a suitable starting point for assessing inventive step if the skilled person would have realistically started from it. An important consideration in this assessment generally is whether this disclosure aims at the same or a similar purpose or effect as that underlying the patent in question (see in particular 5.3 to 5.6 of the Reasons).

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

Special reasons present in the sense of Article 11 (1) RPBA 2020 (see point 6 of the reasons for the decision)

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision

Online on

Board

Decision date

Proc. language

IPC

Application no.

Catchword

A request in which some claims have been deleted compared to the requests that were filed previously with the grounds of appeal or the reply is, according to the systematic context of Article 12(3) RPBA 2020 and Article 13 RPBA 2020, a new request and thus usually amounts to an "amendment to the party's appeal case".

Keywords

Application title

European Case Law Identifier

Distribution

Decision