Skip to main content Skip to footer
HomeHome
 
  • Homepage
  • Searching for patents

    Patent knowledge

    Access our patent databases and search tools.

    Go to overview 

    • Overview
    • Technical information
      • Overview
      • Espacenet - patent search
      • European Publication Server
      • EP full-text search
    • Legal information
      • Overview
      • European Patent Register
      • European Patent Bulletin
      • European Case Law Identifier sitemap
      • Third-party observations
    • Business information
      • Overview
      • PATSTAT
      • IPscore
      • Technology insight reports
    • Data
      • Overview
      • Technology Intelligence Platform
      • Linked open EP data
      • Bulk data sets
      • Web services
      • Coverage, codes and statistics
    • Technology platforms
      • Overview
      • Plastics in transition
      • Water innovation
      • Space innovation
      • Technologies combatting cancer
      • Firefighting technologies
      • Clean energy technologies
      • Fighting coronavirus
    • Helpful resources
      • Overview
      • First time here?
      • Asian patent information
      • Patent information centres
      • Patent Translate
      • Patent Knowledge News
      • Business and statistics
      • Unitary Patent information in patent knowledge
    Image
    Plastics in Transition

    Technology insight report on plastic waste management

  • Applying for a patent

    Applying for a patent

    Practical information on filing and grant procedures.

    Go to overview 

    • Overview
    • European route
      • Overview
      • European Patent Guide
      • Oppositions
      • Oral proceedings
      • Appeals
      • Unitary Patent & Unified Patent Court
      • National validation
      • Request for extension/validation
    • International route (PCT)
      • Overview
      • Euro-PCT Guide – PCT procedure at the EPO
      • EPO decisions and notices
      • PCT provisions and resources
      • Extension/validation request
      • Reinforced partnership programme
      • Accelerating your PCT application
      • Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH)
      • Training and events
    • National route
    • Find a professional representative
    • MyEPO services
      • Overview
      • Understand our services
      • Get access
      • File with us
      • Interact with us on your files
      • Online Filing & fee payment outages
    • Forms
      • Overview
      • Request for examination
    • Fees
      • Overview
      • European fees (EPC)
      • International fees (PCT)
      • Unitary Patent fees (UP)
      • Fee payment and refunds
      • Warning

    UP

    Find out how the Unitary Patent can enhance your IP strategy

  • Law & practice

    Law & practice

    European patent law, the Official Journal and other legal texts.

    Go to overview 

    • Overview
    • Legal texts
      • Overview
      • European Patent Convention
      • Official Journal
      • Guidelines
      • Extension / validation system
      • London Agreement
      • National law relating to the EPC
      • Unitary patent system
      • National measures relating to the Unitary Patent
    • Court practices
      • Overview
      • European Patent Judges' Symposium
    • User consultations
      • Overview
      • Ongoing consultations
      • Completed consultations
    • Substantive patent law harmonisation
      • Overview
      • The Tegernsee process
      • Group B+
    • Convergence of practice
    • Options for professional representatives
    Image
    Law and practice scales 720x237

    Keep up with key aspects of selected BoA decisions with our monthly "Abstracts of decisions”

  • News & events

    News & events

    Our latest news, podcasts and events, including the European Inventor Award.

    Go to overview 

     

    • Overview
    • News
    • Events
    • European Inventor Award
      • Overview
      • The meaning of tomorrow
      • About the award
      • Categories and prizes
      • Meet the finalists
      • Nominations
      • European Inventor Network
      • The 2024 event
    • Young Inventor Prize
      • Overview
      • About the prize
      • Nominations
      • The jury
      • The world, reimagined
    • Press centre
      • Overview
      • Patent Index and statistics
      • Search in press centre
      • Background information
      • Copyright
      • Press contacts
      • Call back form
      • Email alert service
    • Innovation and patenting in focus
      • Overview
      • Water-related technologies
      • CodeFest
      • Green tech in focus
      • Research institutes
      • Women inventors
      • Lifestyle
      • Space and satellites
      • The future of medicine
      • Materials science
      • Mobile communications
      • Biotechnology
      • Patent classification
      • Digital technologies
      • The future of manufacturing
      • Books by EPO experts
    • "Talk innovation" podcast

    Podcast

    From ideas to inventions: tune into our podcast for the latest in tech and IP

  • Learning

    Learning

    The European Patent Academy – the point of access to your learning

    Go to overview 

    • Overview
    • Learning activities and paths
      • Overview
      • Learning activities
      • Learning paths
    • EQE and EPAC
      • Overview
      • EQE - European qualifying examination
      • EPAC - European patent administration certification
      • CSP – Candidate Support Programme
    • Learning resources by area of interest
      • Overview
      • Patent granting
      • Technology transfer and dissemination
      • Patent enforcement and litigation
    • Learning resources by profile
      • Overview
      • Business and IP managers
      • EQE and EPAC Candidates
      • Judges, lawyers and prosecutors
      • National offices and IP authorities
      • Patent attorneys and paralegals
      • Universities, research centres and technology transfer centres (TTOs)
    Image
    Patent Academy catalogue

    Have a look at the extensive range of learning opportunities in the European Patent Academy training catalogue

  • About us

    About us

    Find out more about our work, values, history and vision

    Go to overview 

    • Overview
    • The EPO at a glance
    • 50 years of the EPC
      • Overview
      • Official celebrations
      • Member states’ video statements
      • 50 Leading Tech Voices
      • Athens Marathon
      • Kids’ collaborative art competition
    • Legal foundations and member states
      • Overview
      • Legal foundations
      • Member states of the European Patent Organisation
      • Extension states
      • Validation states
    • Administrative Council and subsidiary bodies
      • Overview
      • Communiqués
      • Calendar
      • Documents and publications
      • Administrative Council
    • Principles & strategy
      • Overview
      • Our mission, vision, values and corporate policy
      • Strategic Plan 2028
      • Towards a New Normal
    • Leadership & management
      • Overview
      • President António Campinos
      • Management Advisory Committee
    • Sustainability at the EPO
      • Overview
      • Environmental
      • Social
      • Governance and Financial sustainability
    • Services & activities
      • Overview
      • Our services & structure
      • Quality
      • Consulting our users
      • European and international co-operation
      • European Patent Academy
      • Chief Economist
      • Ombuds Office
      • Reporting wrongdoing
    • Observatory on Patents and Technology
      • Overview
      • Innovation actors
      • Policy and funding
      • Tools
      • About the Observatory
    • Procurement
      • Overview
      • Procurement forecast
      • Doing business with the EPO
      • Procurement procedures
      • Sustainable Procurement Policy
      • About eTendering and electronic signatures
      • Procurement portal
      • Invoicing
      • General conditions
      • Archived tenders
    • Transparency portal
      • Overview
      • General
      • Human
      • Environmental
      • Organisational
      • Social and relational
      • Economic
      • Governance
    • Statistics and trends
      • Overview
      • Statistics & Trends Centre
      • Patent Index 2024
      • EPO Data Hub
      • Clarification on data sources
    • History
      • Overview
      • 1970s
      • 1980s
      • 1990s
      • 2000s
      • 2010s
      • 2020s
    • Art collection
      • Overview
      • The collection
      • Let's talk about art
      • Artists
      • Media library
      • What's on
      • Publications
      • Contact
      • Culture Space A&T 5-10
      • "Long Night"
    Image
    Patent Index 2024 keyvisual showing brightly lit up data chip, tinted in purple, bright blue

    Track the latest tech trends with our Patent Index

 
Website
cancel
en de fr
  • Language selection
  • English
  • Deutsch
  • Français
Main navigation
  • Homepage
    • Go back
    • New to patents
  • New to patents
    • Go back
    • Your business and patents
    • Why do we have patents?
    • What's your big idea?
    • Are you ready?
    • What to expect
    • How to apply for a patent
    • Is it patentable?
    • Are you first?
    • Patent quiz
    • Unitary patent video
  • Searching for patents
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • Technical information
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Espacenet - patent search
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • National patent office databases
        • Global Patent Index (GPI)
        • Release notes
      • European Publication Server
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Release notes
        • Cross-reference index for Euro-PCT applications
        • EP authority file
        • Help
      • EP full-text search
    • Legal information
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • European Patent Register
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Release notes archive
        • Register documentation
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Deep link data coverage
          • Federated Register
          • Register events
      • European Patent Bulletin
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Download Bulletin
        • EP Bulletin search
        • Help
      • European Case Law Identifier sitemap
      • Third-party observations
    • Business information
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • PATSTAT
      • IPscore
        • Go back
        • Release notes
      • Technology insight reports
    • Data
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Technology Intelligence Platform
      • Linked open EP data
      • Bulk data sets
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Manuals
        • Sequence listings
        • National full-text data
        • European Patent Register data
        • EPO worldwide bibliographic data (DOCDB)
        • EP full-text data
        • EPO worldwide legal event data (INPADOC)
        • EP bibliographic data (EBD)
        • Boards of Appeal decisions
      • Web services
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Open Patent Services (OPS)
        • European Publication Server web service
      • Coverage, codes and statistics
        • Go back
        • Weekly updates
        • Updated regularly
    • Technology platforms
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Plastics in transition
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Plastics waste recovery
        • Plastics waste recycling
        • Alternative plastics
      • Innovation in water technologies
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Clean water
        • Protection from water
      • Space innovation
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Cosmonautics
        • Space observation
      • Technologies combatting cancer
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Prevention and early detection
        • Diagnostics
        • Therapies
        • Wellbeing and aftercare
      • Firefighting technologies
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Detection and prevention of fires
        • Fire extinguishing
        • Protective equipment
        • Post-fire restoration
      • Clean energy technologies
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Renewable energy
        • Carbon-intensive industries
        • Energy storage and other enabling technologies
      • Fighting coronavirus
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Vaccines and therapeutics
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Vaccines
          • Overview of candidate therapies for COVID-19
          • Candidate antiviral and symptomatic therapeutics
          • Nucleic acids and antibodies to fight coronavirus
        • Diagnostics and analytics
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Protein and nucleic acid assays
          • Analytical protocols
        • Informatics
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Bioinformatics
          • Healthcare informatics
        • Technologies for the new normal
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Devices, materials and equipment
          • Procedures, actions and activities
          • Digital technologies
        • Inventors against coronavirus
    • Helpful resources
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • First time here?
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Basic definitions
        • Patent classification
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC)
        • Patent families
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • DOCDB simple patent family
          • INPADOC extended patent family
        • Legal event data
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • INPADOC classification scheme
      • Asian patent information
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • China (CN)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Facts and figures
          • Grant procedure
          • Numbering system
          • Useful terms
          • Searching in databases
        • Chinese Taipei (TW)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Grant procedure
          • Numbering system
          • Useful terms
          • Searching in databases
        • India (IN)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Facts and figures
          • Grant procedure
          • Numbering system
        • Japan (JP)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Facts and figures
          • Grant procedure
          • Numbering system
          • Useful terms
          • Searching in databases
        • Korea (KR)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Facts and figures
          • Grant procedure
          • Numbering system
          • Useful terms
          • Searching in databases
        • Russian Federation (RU)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Facts and figures
          • Numbering system
          • Searching in databases
        • Useful links
      • Patent information centres (PATLIB)
      • Patent Translate
      • Patent Knowledge News
      • Business and statistics
      • Unitary Patent information in patent knowledge
  • Applying for a patent
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • European route
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • European Patent Guide
      • Oppositions
      • Oral proceedings
        • Go back
        • Oral proceedings calendar
          • Go back
          • Calendar
          • Public access to appeal proceedings
          • Public access to opposition proceedings
          • Technical guidelines
      • Appeals
      • Unitary Patent & Unified Patent Court
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Unitary Patent
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Legal framework
          • Main features
          • Applying for a Unitary Patent
          • Cost of a Unitary Patent
          • Translation and compensation
          • Start date
          • Introductory brochures
        • Unified Patent Court
      • National validation
      • Extension/validation request
    • International route
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Euro-PCT Guide
      • Entry into the European phase
      • Decisions and notices
      • PCT provisions and resources
      • Extension/validation request
      • Reinforced partnership programme
      • Accelerating your PCT application
      • Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH)
        • Go back
        • Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) programme outline
      • Training and events
    • National route
    • MyEPO services
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Understand our services
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Exchange data with us using an API
          • Go back
          • Release notes
      • Get access
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Release notes
      • File with us
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • What if our online filing services are down?
        • Release notes
      • Interact with us on your files
        • Go back
        • Release notes
      • Online Filing & fee payment outages
    • Fees
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • European fees (EPC)
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Decisions and notices
      • International fees (PCT)
        • Go back
        • Reduction in fees
        • Fees for international applications
        • Decisions and notices
        • Overview
      • Unitary Patent fees (UP)
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Decisions and notices
      • Fee payment and refunds
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Payment methods
        • Getting started
        • FAQs and other documentation
        • Technical information for batch payments
        • Decisions and notices
        • Release notes
      • Warning
    • Forms
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Request for examination
    • Find a professional representative
  • Law & practice
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • Legal texts
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • European Patent Convention
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Archive
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Documentation on the EPC revision 2000
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • Diplomatic Conference for the revision of the EPC
            • Travaux préparatoires
            • New text
            • Transitional provisions
            • Implementing regulations to the EPC 2000
            • Rules relating to Fees
            • Ratifications and accessions
          • Travaux Préparatoires EPC 1973
      • Official Journal
      • Guidelines
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • EPC Guidelines
        • PCT-EPO Guidelines
        • Unitary Patent Guidelines
        • Guidelines revision cycle
        • Consultation results
        • Summary of user responses
        • Archive
      • Extension / validation system
      • London Agreement
      • National law relating to the EPC
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Archive
      • Unitary Patent system
        • Go back
        • Travaux préparatoires to UP and UPC
      • National measures relating to the Unitary Patent 
    • Court practices
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • European Patent Judges' Symposium
    • User consultations
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Ongoing consultations
      • Completed consultations
    • Substantive patent law harmonisation
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • The Tegernsee process
      • Group B+
    • Convergence of practice
    • Options for professional representatives
  • News & events
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • News
    • Events
    • European Inventor Award
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • The meaning of tomorrow
      • About the award
      • Categories and prizes
      • Meet the inventors
      • Nominations
      • European Inventor Network
        • Go back
        • 2024 activities
        • 2025 activities
        • Rules and criteria
        • FAQ
      • The 2024 event
    • Young Inventors Prize
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • About the prize
      • Nominations
      • The jury
      • The world, reimagined
      • The 2025 event
    • Press centre
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Patent Index and statistics
      • Search in press centre
      • Background information
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • European Patent Office
        • Q&A on patents related to coronavirus
        • Q&A on plant patents
      • Copyright
      • Press contacts
      • Call back form
      • Email alert service
    • In focus
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Water-related technologies
      • CodeFest
        • Go back
        • CodeFest Spring 2025 on classifying patent data for sustainable development
        • Overview
        • CodeFest 2024 on generative AI
        • CodeFest 2023 on Green Plastics
      • Green tech in focus
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • About green tech
        • Renewable energies
        • Energy transition technologies
        • Building a greener future
      • Research institutes
      • Women inventors
      • Lifestyle
      • Space and satellites
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Patents and space technologies
      • Healthcare
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Medical technologies and cancer
        • Personalised medicine
      • Materials science
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Nanotechnology
      • Mobile communications
      • Biotechnology
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Red, white or green
        • The role of the EPO
        • What is patentable?
        • Biotech inventors
      • Classification
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Nanotechnology
        • Climate change mitigation technologies
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • External partners
          • Updates on Y02 and Y04S
      • Digital technologies
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • About ICT
        • Hardware and software
        • Artificial intelligence
        • Fourth Industrial Revolution
      • Additive manufacturing
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • About AM
        • AM innovation
      • Books by EPO experts
    • Podcast
  • Learning
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • Learning activities and paths
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Learning activities: types and formats
      • Learning paths
    • EQE and EPAC
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • EQE - European Qualifying Examination
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Compendium
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Paper F
          • Paper A
          • Paper B
          • Paper C
          • Paper D
          • Pre-examination
        • Candidates successful in the European qualifying examination
        • Archive
      • EPAC - European patent administration certification
      • CSP – Candidate Support Programme
    • Learning resources by area of interest
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Patent granting
      • Technology transfer and dissemination
      • Patent enforcement and litigation
    • Learning resources by profile
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Business and IP managers
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Innovation case studies
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • SME case studies
          • Technology transfer case studies
          • High-growth technology case studies
        • Inventor's handbook
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Introduction
          • Disclosure and confidentiality
          • Novelty and prior art
          • Competition and market potential
          • Assessing the risk ahead
          • Proving the invention
          • Protecting your idea
          • Building a team and seeking funding
          • Business planning
          • Finding and approaching companies
          • Dealing with companies
        • Best of search matters
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Tools and databases
          • EPO procedures and initiatives
          • Search strategies
          • Challenges and specific topics
        • Support for high-growth technology businesses
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Business decision-makers
          • IP professionals
          • Stakeholders of the Innovation Ecosystem
      • EQE and EPAC Candidates
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Paper F brain-teasers
        • Daily D questions
        • European qualifying examination - Guide for preparation
        • EPAC
      • Judges, lawyers and prosecutors
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Compulsory licensing in Europe
        • The jurisdiction of European courts in patent disputes
      • National offices and IP authorities
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Learning material for examiners of national officers
        • Learning material for formalities officers and paralegals
      • Patent attorneys and paralegals
      • Universities, research centres and TTOs
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Modular IP Education Framework (MIPEF)
        • Pan-European Seal Young Professionals Programme
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • For students
          • For universities
            • Go back
            • Overview
            • IP education resources
            • University memberships
          • Our young professionals
          • Professional development plan
        • Academic Research Programme
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Completed research projects
          • Current research projects
        • IP Teaching Kit
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Download modules
        • Intellectual property course design manual
        • PATLIB Knowledge Transfer to Africa
          • Go back
          • The PATLIB Knowledge Transfer to Africa initiative (KT2A)
          • KT2A core activities
          • Success story: Malawi University of Science and Technology and PATLIB Birmingham
  • About us
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • The EPO at a glance
    • 50 years of the EPC
      • Go back
      • Official celebrations
      • Overview
      • Member states’ video statements
        • Go back
        • Albania
        • Austria
        • Belgium
        • Bulgaria
        • Croatia
        • Cyprus
        • Czech Republic
        • Denmark
        • Estonia
        • Finland
        • France
        • Germany
        • Greece
        • Hungary
        • Iceland
        • Ireland
        • Italy
        • Latvia
        • Liechtenstein
        • Lithuania
        • Luxembourg
        • Malta
        • Monaco
        • Montenegro
        • Netherlands
        • North Macedonia
        • Norway
        • Poland
        • Portugal
        • Romania
        • San Marino
        • Serbia
        • Slovakia
        • Slovenia
        • Spain
        • Sweden
        • Switzerland
        • Türkiye
        • United Kingdom
      • 50 Leading Tech Voices
      • Athens Marathon
      • Kids’ collaborative art competition
    • Legal foundations and member states
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Legal foundations
      • Member states
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Member states by date of accession
      • Extension states
      • Validation states
    • Administrative Council and subsidiary bodies
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Communiqués
        • Go back
        • 2024
        • Overview
        • 2023
        • 2022
        • 2021
        • 2020
        • 2019
        • 2018
        • 2017
        • 2016
        • 2015
        • 2014
        • 2013
      • Calendar
      • Documents and publications
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Select Committee documents
      • Administrative Council
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Composition
        • Representatives
        • Rules of Procedure
        • Board of Auditors
        • Secretariat
        • Council bodies
    • Principles & strategy
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Mission, vision, values & corporate policy
      • Strategic Plan 2028
        • Go back
        • Driver 1: People
        • Driver 2: Technologies
        • Driver 3: High-quality, timely products and services
        • Driver 4: Partnerships
        • Driver 5: Financial sustainability
      • Towards a New Normal
      • Data protection & privacy notice
    • Leadership & management
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • About the President
      • Management Advisory Committee
    • Sustainability at the EPO
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Environmental
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Inspiring environmental inventions
      • Social
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Inspiring social inventions
      • Governance and Financial sustainability
    • Procurement
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Procurement forecast
      • Doing business with the EPO
      • Procurement procedures
      • Dynamic Purchasing System (DPS) publications
      • Sustainable Procurement Policy
      • About eTendering
      • Invoicing
      • Procurement portal
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • e-Signing contracts
      • General conditions
      • Archived tenders
    • Services & activities
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Our services & structure
      • Quality
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Foundations
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • European Patent Convention
          • Guidelines for examination
          • Our staff
        • Enabling quality
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Prior art
          • Classification
          • Tools
          • Processes
        • Products & services
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Search
          • Examination
          • Opposition
          • Continuous improvement
        • Quality through networking
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • User engagement
          • Co-operation
          • User satisfaction survey
          • Stakeholder Quality Assurance Panels
        • Patent Quality Charter
        • Quality Action Plan
        • Quality dashboard
        • Statistics
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Search
          • Examination
          • Opposition
        • Integrated management at the EPO
      • Consulting our users
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Standing Advisory Committee before the EPO (SACEPO)
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Objectives
          • SACEPO and its working parties
          • Meetings
          • Single Access Portal – SACEPO Area
        • Surveys
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Detailed methodology
          • Search services
          • Examination services, final actions and publication
          • Opposition services
          • Formalities services
          • Customer services
          • Filing services
          • Key Account Management (KAM)
          • Website
          • Archive
      • Our user service charter
      • European and international co-operation
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Co-operation with member states
          • Go back
          • Overview
        • Bilateral co-operation with non-member states
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Validation system
          • Reinforced Partnership programme
        • Multilateral international co-operation with IP offices and organisations
        • Co-operation with international organisations outside the IP system
      • European Patent Academy
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Partners
      • Chief Economist
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Economic studies
      • Ombuds Office
      • Reporting wrongdoing
    • Observatory on Patents and Technology
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Innovation against cancer
      • Innovation actors
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Startups and SMEs
      • Policy and funding
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Financing innovation programme
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Our studies on the financing of innovation
          • EPO initiatives for patent applicants
          • Financial support for innovators in Europe
        • Patents and standards
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Publications
          • Patent standards explorer
      • Tools
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Deep Tech Finder
      • About the Observatory
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Work plan
    • Transparency portal
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • General
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Annual Review 2023
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Foreword
          • Executive summary
          • 50 years of the EPC
          • Strategic key performance indicators
          • Goal 1: Engaged and empowered
          • Goal 2: Digital transformation
          • Goal 3: Master quality
          • Goal 4: Partner for positive impact
          • Goal 5: Secure sustainability
        • Annual Review 2022
          • Go back
          • Overview
          • Foreword
          • Executive summary
          • Goal 1: Engaged and empowered
          • Goal 2: Digital transformation
          • Goal 3: Master quality
          • Goal 4: Partner for positive impact
          • Goal 5: Secure sustainability
      • Human
      • Environmental
      • Organisational
      • Social and relational
      • Economic
      • Governance
    • Statistics and trends
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Statistics & Trends Centre
      • Patent Index 2024
        • Go back
        • Insight into computer technology and AI
        • Insight into clean energy technologies
        • Statistics and indicators
          • Go back
          • European patent applications
            • Go back
            • Key trend
            • Origin
            • Top 10 technical fields
              • Go back
              • Computer technology
              • Electrical machinery, apparatus, energy
              • Digital communication
              • Medical technology
              • Transport
              • Measurement
              • Biotechnology
              • Pharmaceuticals
              • Other special machines
              • Organic fine chemistry
            • All technical fields
          • Applicants
            • Go back
            • Top 50
            • Categories
            • Women inventors
          • Granted patents
            • Go back
            • Key trend
            • Origin
            • Designations
      • Data to download
      • EPO Data Hub
      • Clarification on data sources
    • History
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • 1970s
      • 1980s
      • 1990s
      • 2000s
      • 2010s
      • 2020s
    • Art collection
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • The collection
      • Let's talk about art
      • Artists
      • Media library
      • What's on
      • Publications
      • Contact
      • Culture Space A&T 5-10
        • Go back
        • Catalyst lab & Deep vision
          • Go back
          • Irene Sauter (DE)
          • AVPD (DK)
          • Jan Robert Leegte (NL)
          • Jānis Dzirnieks (LV) #1
          • Jānis Dzirnieks (LV) #2
          • Péter Szalay (HU)
          • Thomas Feuerstein (AT)
          • Tom Burr (US)
          • Wolfgang Tillmans (DE)
          • TerraPort
          • Unfinished Sculpture - Captives #1
          • Deep vision – immersive exhibition
          • Previous exhibitions
        • The European Patent Journey
        • Sustaining life. Art in the climate emergency
        • Next generation statements
        • Open storage
        • Cosmic bar
      • "Long Night"
  • Boards of Appeal
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • Decisions of the Boards of Appeal
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Recent decisions
      • Selected decisions
    • Information from the Boards of Appeal
    • Procedure
    • Oral proceedings
    • About the Boards of Appeal
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • President of the Boards of Appeal
      • Enlarged Board of Appeal
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Pending referrals (Art. 112 EPC)
        • Decisions sorted by number (Art. 112 EPC)
        • Pending petitions for review (Art. 112a EPC)
        • Decisions on petitions for review (Art. 112a EPC)
      • Technical Boards of Appeal
      • Legal Board of Appeal
      • Disciplinary Board of Appeal
      • Presidium
        • Go back
        • Overview
    • Code of Conduct
    • Business distribution scheme
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Technical boards of appeal by IPC in 2025
      • Archive
    • Annual list of cases
    • Communications
    • Annual reports
      • Go back
      • Overview
    • Publications
      • Go back
      • Abstracts of decisions
    • Case Law of the Boards of Appeal
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Archive
  • Service & support
    • Go back
    • Overview
    • Website updates
    • Availability of online services
      • Go back
      • Overview
    • FAQ
      • Go back
      • Overview
    • Publications
    • Ordering
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Patent Knowledge Products and Services
      • Terms and conditions
        • Go back
        • Overview
        • Patent information products
        • Bulk data sets
        • Open Patent Services (OPS)
        • Fair use charter
    • Procedural communications
    • Useful links
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Patent offices of member states
      • Other patent offices
      • Directories of patent attorneys
      • Patent databases, registers and gazettes
      • Disclaimer
    • Contact us
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Filing options
      • Locations
    • Subscription centre
      • Go back
      • Overview
      • Subscribe
      • Change preferences
      • Unsubscribe
    • Official holidays
    • Glossary
    • RSS feeds
Board of Appeals
Decisions

Recent decisions

Overview
  • 2025 decisions
  • 2024 decisions
  • 2023 decisions
  1. Home
  2. T 0162/04 28-03-2007
Facebook X Linkedin Email

T 0162/04 28-03-2007

European Case Law Identifier
ECLI:EP:BA:2007:T016204.20070328
Date of decision
28 March 2007
Case number
T 0162/04
Petition for review of
-
Application number
94909924.6
IPC class
C08J 9/14
Language of proceedings
EN
Distribution
DISTRIBUTED TO BOARD CHAIRMEN (C)

Download and more information:

Decision in EN 173.7 KB
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the European Patent Register
Bibliographic information is available in:
EN
Versions
Unpublished
Application title

Process for preparing rigid polyurethane foams

Applicant name
HUNTSMAN INTERNATIONAL LLC
Opponent name

THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY

Bayer MaterialScience AG

Board
3.3.09
Headnote
-
Relevant legal provisions
European Patent Convention Art 84 1973
European Patent Convention Art 104 1973
European Patent Convention Art 112(1) 1973
European Patent Convention Art 123(2) 1973
European Patent Convention R 57a 1973
Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 10b
Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 11a
Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 11b
Keywords

Admissibility of late filed main request (yes)

Admissibility of late filed auxiliary requests (no)

Referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal (no)

Clarity of main request (yes)

Admissiblity of amendments (no)

Apportionment of costs (no)

Catchword
-
Cited decisions
-
Citing decisions
T 0967/12
T 0009/24

I. Mention of the grant of European patent No 0 695 322 in respect of European patent application No 94909924.6 (PCT/EP94/00642) in the name of IMPERIAL CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES PLC (now HUNTSMAN INTERNATIONAL LLC) was announced on 19 August 1998 (Bulletin 1998/34). The European patent application had been filed on 4 March 1994 claiming two GB priorities, the first of 23 April 1993 (GB 9308449), the second of 20 July 1993 (GB 9315130). The patent, entitled "Process for preparing rigid polyurethane foams", was granted with seven claims. Independent process Claim 1 and independent product Claims 4 and 5 read as follows:

"1. Process for the preparation of a rigid polyurethane or urethane-modified polyisocyanurate foam by reaction of a polyisocyanate composition with a polyfunctional isocyanate-reactive composition under foam-forming conditions in the presence of a blowing agent mixture comprising cyclopentane, characterised in that said blowing agent mixture further comprises n-pentane or isopentane in a molar ratio cyclopentane/iso- or n-pentane of between 80/20 and 30/70."

"4. Polyurethane or urethane-modified polyisocyanurate foam obtainable by the process defined in any of claims 1 to 3."

"5. Polyisocyanate-reactive composition containing a blowing agent mixture comprising cyclopentane, characterised in that said blowing agent mixture further comprises isopentane or n-pentane in a molar ratio cyclopentane/iso- or n-pentane of between 80/20 and 30/70."

Claims 2 and 3 were dependent, directly or indirectly, on Claim 1. Claims 6 and 7 were directly or indirectly dependent on Claim 5.

II. A first Notice of Opposition was filed against the patent by The Dow Chemical Company on 17 May 1999. Opponent I requested the revocation of the patent in its full scope, relying on Articles 100(a) (lack of novelty and of inventive step), 100(b) and 100(c) EPC.

III. A second Notice of Opposition was filed against the patent by BAYER AG (now Bayer MaterialScience AG) on 19 May 1999. Opponent II requested the revocation of the patent in its full scope, relying on Articles 100(a) (lack of novelty and of inventive step) and 100(c) EPC.

IV. By its decision orally announced at the oral proceedings of 4 December 2002 and issued in writing on 8 December 2003 the Opposition Division revoked the patent.

V. The Opposition Division held in that decision that the opposed patent, while complying with the requirements of Articles 100(b) and (c), did not fulfil those of Article 100(a) EPC. The subject-matter of the main and the two auxiliary requests was considered to lack novelty over the cited prior art.

With regard to the opposition ground under Article 100(c) EPC, the Opposition Division held that - in view of the restricted definition of the co-blowing agent in granted Claim 1 - the deletion from the claimed subject-matter of equation (i), which according to the original disclosure established a definite relationship between the saturated vapour pressure at Tuse of the co-blowing agent and its amount (c) in mole%, was not objectionable under Article 123(2) EPC.

VI. On 2 February 2004 the Patent Proprietor (Appellant) lodged an appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division and paid the appeal fee on the same day.

With the Statement setting out the Grounds of Appeal filed on 5 April 2004, the Appellant contested the decision of the Opposition Division. The Appellant maintained as requests in the appeal proceedings the main, first and second auxiliary requests on which the appealed decision had been based.

Independent Claim 1 of each of these requests read as follows:

Main request:

"1. Process for the preparation of a rigid polyurethane or urethane-modified polyisocyanurate foam by reaction of a polyisocyanate composition with a polyfunctional isocyanate-reactive composition under foam-forming conditions in the presence of a blowing agent mixture comprising cyclopentane, characterised in that said blowing agent mixture further comprises isopentane in a molar ratio cyclopentane/isopentane of between 80/20 and 30/70."

First auxiliary request:

"1. Process for the preparation of a rigid polyurethane or urethane-modified polyisocyanurate foam by reaction of a polyisocyanate composition with a polyfunctional isocyanate-reactive composition under foam-forming conditions in the presence of a blowing agent mixture comprising cyclopentane, characterised in that said blowing agent mixture further comprises isopentane in a molar ratio cyclopentane/isopentane of between 80/20 and 30/70 and wherein water is also present."

Second auxiliary request:

"1. Process for the preparation of a rigid polyurethane or urethane-modified polyisocyanurate foam by reaction of a polyisocyanate composition with a polyfunctional isocyanate-reactive composition under foam-forming conditions in the presence of a blowing agent mixture comprising cyclopentane, characterised in that said blowing agent mixture further comprises isopentane in a molar ratio cyclopentane/isopentane of between 80/20 and 30/70 and wherein water is also present in amounts ranging from 0.5 to 3% by weight based on the isocyanate-reactive compound."

The process of Claim 1 of the main request corresponded to that of granted Claim 1 with the limitation that the blowing agent mixture comprised cyclopentane and isopentane (but no longer n-pentane).

The process of Claim 1 of the first auxiliary request corresponded to that of Claim 1 of the main request with the additional feature that water was also present.

The process of Claim 1 of the second auxiliary request corresponded to that of Claim 1 of the first auxiliary request with the limitation of the presence of the water in amounts ranging from 0.5 to 3% by weight based on the isocyanate-reactive compound.

VII. With the letter dated 10 August 2004, Respondent II (Opponent II), requested that the decision of the Opposition Division be confirmed and that the patent be revoked in its entirety for lack of novelty of the subject-matter of all of the Appellant's requests.

VIII. With the letter dated 13 January 2005, Respondent I (Opponent I) requested that the appeal be dismissed and that the patent be revoked in its entirety.

Respondent I contested the decision of the Opposition Division inter alia as far as the allowability under Article 123(2) EPC of amendments made before grant was concerned, in particular with regard to the deletion of equation (i) from the claimed subject-matter. In relation to that objection it provided evidence aimed at showing that this deletion had led to an inadmissible extension of the claimed subject-matter beyond the content of the originally filed application.

Respondent I also contested the novelty of the subject-matter of all of the Appellant's requests.

IX. With the letter dated 21 December 2006, the Appellant replaced the requests on file by a new main and eight auxiliary requests. Furthermore it requested the amendment of the description on the basis of Rule 88 EPC by the re-introduction of equation (i) contained in the application as filed but deleted during the examining phase. No arguments were submitted in relation to the objection raised under Article 123(2) EPC.

The subject-matter of Claim 1 of the main request reads as follows:

"1. Process for the preparation of a rigid polyurethane or urethane-modified polyisocyanurate foam by reaction of a polyisocyanate composition with a polyfunctional isocyanate-reactive composition under foam-forming conditions in the presence of a physical blowing agent mixture comprising cyclopentane and isopentane in a molar ratio cyclopentane/isopentane of between 80/20 and 30/70."

The process of this Claim 1 derived from that of granted Claim 1 with the limitation that the blowing agent mixture was a physical blowing agent mixture comprising cyclopentane and isopentane.

The subject-matter of Claims 1 and 3 of the seventh auxiliary request read as follows:

"1. Process for the preparation of a rigid polyurethane or urethane-modified polyisocyanurate foam by reaction of a polyisocyanate composition with a polyfunctional isocyanate-reactive composition under foam-forming conditions in the presence of a physical blowing agent mixture consisting of technical grade or pure grade cyclopentane and isopentane in a molar ratio cyclopentane/isopentane of between 80/20 and 30/70, wherein the polyurethane is not prepared by reacting at an NCO index of 1.25 VORANATE M220 with a polyahl composition containing an oxyethylene-oxypropylene adduct of phenol/formaldehyde resin, an aromatic polyester and oxypropylene adduct of ethylene diamine in the presence of 1.2 wt% water using cyclopentane/iso-pentane mixture in a molar ratio 81/19, 61/39 or 41/59, and wherein the physical blowing agent is not a mixture consisting of 1 to 50 weight% of cyclopentane with n- and/or iso-pentane, the saturated vapour pressure of isopentane in bar at Tuse (v.p.) complying with the following equation (i)

v.p >= 0.7 bar x Tuse/298K x C/100 (i)

wherein C is the mole% of said co-blowing agent in gaseous form on the total blowing agent mixture in the gaseous phase after foaming and Tuse is the temperature in K at which the foam is used."

"3. Process according to any one of the preceding claims, wherein water is present in amounts ranging from 0.5 to 3% by weight based on the isocyanate-reactive compound."

X. With the letter dated 25 January 2007, Respondent I contested the admissibility of these latter filed auxiliary requests on the ground that their filing amounted to an abuse of procedure, in particular, as they were not accompanied by any explanation. Respondent I also objected to the correction requested under Rule 88 EPC.

Furthermore it reiterated its objection under Article 100(c) in view of the deletion of equation (i) from the claimed subject-matter. Additionally, it contested the novelty and the inventive step of the claimed subject-matter.

XI. With the letter dated 26 January 2007 Respondent II objected to the latest requests of the Appellant under Article 123(2) and (3) EPC. It also contested the novelty and inventive step of the claimed subject-matter.

XII. With the letter dated 26 February 2007 the Appellant submitted a new set of requests replacing those previously filed. The new set comprised a main and five auxiliary requests, some of which re-introduced the possible use of n-pentane as co-blowing agent. The Appellant also provided arguments relating to the issues of the allowability of the amendments and of lack of novelty.

Claim 1 of the main request reads as follows:

"1. Process for the preparation of a rigid polyurethane or urethane-modified polyisocyanurate foam by reaction of a polyisocyanate composition with a polyfunctional isocyanate-reactive composition under foam-forming conditions in the presence of a physical blowing agent mixture consisting of cyclopentane and isopentane in a molar ratio cyclopentane/isopentane of between 80/20 and 30/70, wherein water is present in amounts ranging from 0.5 to 3% by weight based on the isocyanate-reactive compound."

XIII. On 28 March 2007 oral proceedings were held before the Board.

At these proceedings the Appellant submitted new auxiliary requests 1 to 3 replacing the auxiliary requests on file.

Claim 1 of the first auxiliary request corresponded to Claim 1 of the second auxiliary request submitted on 26 February 2007 with the amendment that the co-blowing agent was limited to isopentane. This claim reads as follows:

"1. Process for the preparation of a rigid polyurethane or urethane-modified polyisocyanurate foam by reaction of a polyisocyanate composition with a polyfunctional isocyanate-reactive composition under foam-forming conditions in the presence of a physical blowing agent mixture consisting of cyclopentane and isopentane in a molar ratio cyclopentane/isopentane of between 80/20 and 30/70, wherein water is present in amounts ranging from 0.5 to 3% by weight based on the isocyanate-reactive compound,

wherein the polyurethane is not prepared by reacting at an NCO index of 1.25 a crude methylene diphenylisocyanate with a polyahl composition containing an oxyethylene-oxypropylene adduct of phenol/formaldehyde resin, an aromatic polyester and oxypropylene adduct of ethylene diamine in the presence of 1.2 wt% water using cyclopentane/iso-pentane in a molar ratio 61/39, or 41/59, and wherein the physical blowing agent does not consist of 1 to 50 weight% of cyclopentane with n- and/or iso-pentane, the saturated vapour pressure of isopentane in bar at Tuse (v.p.) complying with the following equation (i)

v.p >= 0.7 bar x Tuse/298K x C/100 (i)

wherein C is the mole% of said co-blowing agent in gaseous form on the total blowing agent mixture in the gaseous phase after foaming and Tuse is the temperature in K at which the foam is used."

Claim 1 of the second auxiliary request corresponded to Claim 1 of the seventh auxiliary request submitted on 21 December 2006 (see paragraph IX above).

Claim 1 of the third auxiliary request corresponded to a combination of Claims 1 and 3 of the seventh auxiliary request submitted on 21 December 2006 (see paragraph IX above).

Furthermore, it requested the referral of the following four questions to the Enlarged Board of Appeal:

1. Is an appellant required to submit set of claims with the statement of appeal that take into account an issue that was decided in his favour in the first instance decision.

2. During appeal procedure what is the time limit during which a party is expected to react to observations of the other party if no specific time limit is set by the board.

3. What is the ultimate deadline to submit set of claims prior to the oral proceedings. In appeal procedures it has been standard practice to allow claims submitted 1 month prior to oral proceedings.

4. Can a technical board of appeal reject new claims to which the opponent had the opportunity to reply and in fact actually replied.

Respondent I submitted a new document (D15: US-A-5 866 626) in relation to the issue of purity of cyclopentane.

XIV. The arguments put forward by the Appellant in its written submissions and at the oral proceedings can be summarized as follows:

- The equation (i) was a feature with no technical contribution to the solution of the technical problem and could therefore be deleted from the claimed subject-matter.

- The essential feature was the molar ratio cyclopentane/isopentane (application: page 11, first paragraph).

- The use of equation (i) in the originally claimed subject-matter served as a rule of thumb (ie, an empirical rule) for the calculation of the amount as co-blowing agents of a wide range of alternative compounds, including fluoro hydrocarbons.

- The limitation in the claimed process to the use as co-blowing agent of isopentane, which should be present at a specific molar ratio in relation to the (main) blowing agent cyclopentane, rendered the equation redundant with the consequence that its deletion did not contravene the requirements of Article 123(2) EPC.

- The technical evidence submitted by Respondent I (a graphical representation of equation (i)), which related to the variation of vapour pressure with temperature - see paragraph 4.3 below) should be disregarded because it was incorrect. The reason was that the curve Cmax was not calculated according to equation (i), which required the (now obligatory) presence of water as a chemical co-blowing agent to be taken into account (see page 4, lines 23-25 of the application as filed).

- This was because the term C in equation (i), and consequently the term Cmax, was defined as "the mole% of the co-blowing agent in gaseous form on the total blowing agent mixture in the gaseous phase after foaming", meaning that the CO2 generated under the action of water became part of the gaseous phase.

- The factor of 0,7 bar in equation (i) was an empirical correction factor calculated for the whole mixture of blowing agents, including water, and not for the exclusive mixture of cyclopentane/isopentane. This factor would have another value if water was excluded from the blowing agent mixture.

- If Respondent I had taken water into account in its evidence, the result would have been that the claimed molar ratio of cyclopentane/isopentane would have fulfilled the limitations of equation (i).

- Tuse was not an essential feature of the claimed subject-matter, since it was a use feature of the foam and thus irrelevant for the foam preparation process.

- The main request should be admitted, since it was filed in good faith one month before the oral proceedings and since it aimed at overcoming objections raised by the Respondents.

- Likewise the auxiliary requests should be admitted since they were filed as a reply to objections raised by the Respondents and were based on previously filed requests. Though these requests had been withdrawn, they still were part of the file.

- The disclaimers comprised by the subject-matter of some of the auxiliary requests were based on relevant state of the art and had been part of requests which had been submitted before the Opposition Division.

- The subject-matter of Claim 1 of the main request was clear, because the expression "consisting of cyclopentane and isopentane" referred to pure products, which found support in the description (page 3, lines 18-19 and page 4, lines 32-33).

- The four questions were requested to be referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal because there was no uniform application of the law by the various Boards of Appeal with regard to the issue of admissibility of late filed requests in appeal proceedings.

- An apportionment of costs in favour of Respondent I should not be allowed since the auxiliary requests filed on 21 December 2006 were submitted in good faith as a response to the objections previously raised by the Respondents.

XV. The Respondents essentially argued as follows:

- The deletion of equation (i) amounted to a contravention of Article 123(2) EPC. The submitted technical evidence showed that the limitation of the scope of claim 1 by the restriction of the co-blowing agent to isopentane and of the molar ratio cyclopentane/isopentane to between 80/20 and 30/70 did not render equation (i) redundant.

- Equation (i) related only to physical blowing agents, which meant that a possible gas contribution of the chemical blowing agent water should not have been taken into consideration.

- The cyclopentane/isopentane molar ratio of 80/20 was exclusively disclosed in combination with the specific Tuse of +10ºC, and its generalisation to any Tuse contravened the requirements of Article 123(2) EPC.

- No arguments should be based on example 1 of the patent in suit which, after the limitation of the claimed scope to a blowing agent mixture "consisting of" cyclopentane and isopentane, was no longer part of the claimed invention.

- The limitation of the blowing agent mixture by the expression "consisting of cyclopentane and isopentane" introduced a lack of clarity even if one accepted them as being technically pure, ie 98% grade substances, inter alia because this degree of purity still allowed the presence of n-pentane.

- The application as originally filed did not disclose pure grade but rather technical grade cyclopentane and therefore the claims, which related to pure grade cyclopentane, were open to objection not only under Article 123(2) EPC but also under Article 123(3) EPC.

- The late filed main request should not be admitted since not only had no justification for the late filing been provided but also no support for the amendments had been given. The request not only failed to overcome the previously raised objections but also introduced new ones.

- The auxiliary requests, all filed at the oral proceedings, should not be admitted, since their late submission constituted an abuse of procedure. The issue of Article 123(2) EPC had been raised in the written phase of the appeal proceedings and a negative outcome at the oral proceedings could have been foreseen.

- The subject-matter of the auxiliary requests was complex and could not be examined at the oral proceedings.

- Even if the subject-matter of the second and third auxiliary requests was based on the subject-matter of the seventh auxiliary request filed on 21 December 2006, that request had been withdrawn on 26 February 2007 and consequently there had been no need for the Respondents to have considered it in preparation for the oral proceedings before the Board.

- The auxiliary requests were not prima facie admissible since they raised other objections having regard to the disclaimers they contained.

- The filing of nine requests by the Appellant on 21 December 2006 caused unreasonable costs to be incurred by Respondent I, in particular because those requests were later withdrawn on 26 February 2007.

- The questions for referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal did not deal with any particular point of law but related to a point of practice. There were no contradictory decisions with respect to the admissibility of late filed requests.

XVI. The Appellant requested that:

1. The decision under appeal be set aside.

2. The patent be maintained on the basis of the main request filed with letter dated 26 February 2007, or alternatively on the basis of the first, second or third auxiliary requests filed during the oral proceedings.

3. Alternatively, that the four questions in the statement submitted during the oral proceedings be referred to the Enlarged Board.

XVII. The Respondents I and II requested that the appeal be dismissed.

Respondent I also requested that an apportionment of costs be made in its favour to reflect the time spent in considering the Appellant's submissions of 21 December 2006.

1. Admissibility of the new requests

1.1 The main request

The Appellant filed a new main request with its letter of 26 February 2007. This request was based on the second auxiliary request dealt with by the impugned decision but had been changed such that the subject-matter of Claim 1 was restricted. The restriction concerned the definition of the blowing agent mixture, which was now limited to a physical blowing agent mixture consisting of cyclopentane/isopentane (emphasis by the Board). As the amendments were made in an effort to overcome the previously raised objection under Article 123(2) EPC, the Board considered the main request prima facie admissible under Rule 57a EPC and Article 10b RPBA.

1.2 The auxiliary requests

On the contrary, the Board did not admit into the procedure the auxiliary requests 1 to 3 filed at the oral proceedings before the Board. The Board exercising its discretionary power under Article 10b RPBA considered that the complexity of the new subject-matters, their submission at an extremely late stage of the proceedings and the principle of procedural economy together amounted to an insurmountable obstacle to the admissibility of these late filed requests.

In particular, with regard to the first auxiliary request, although it was based on the second auxiliary request filed on 26 February 2007, ie one month before the oral proceedings, the Board was unwilling to admit it because it reintroduced subject-matter, namely the possible use of n-pentane as co-blowing agent, which had been excluded from the subject-matter claimed in the final requests before the Opposition Division and maintained throughout the entire appeal proceedings up to this very late stage.

Concerning the second and third auxiliary requests, while the Board acknowledges that they were based on the seventh auxiliary request filed on 21 December 2006, the latter was filed almost three years after the appeal (3 February 2004) and two years after the filing of observations by Respondents I and II in which they stated that they maintained their objection under Article 123(2) EPC (15 January 2005 and 13 August 2004 respectively).

However, the Board had also to consider that the seventh auxiliary request, like all requests filed on 21 December 2006, had in the meantime been unequivocally withdrawn by the letter dated 26 February 2007.

Consequently, the Board, in agreement with the Respondents' arguments, considered that by reinstating previously withdrawn requests at the oral proceedings the Appellant took the Respondents (and the Board) by surprise.

Additionally, the Board considered that the new auxiliary requests were not prima facie admissible because the insertion of the disclaimers into the claims would not only inevitably have required the consideration of their proper basis having regard to the prior art concerned but would also have involved going through the complex issues of priority, novelty and clarity; this would have put an unreasonable burden on the Respondents, would have required an adjournment of the oral proceedings and would thus have led to an unjustified delay of the whole proceedings.

2. Referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal

The Appellant requested the referral of four questions to the Enlarged Board of Appeal.

Article 112(1) EPC stipulates that, inter alia following a request from a party to an appeal, the Board of Appeal shall refer a question to the Enlarged Board of Appeal if it considers that a decision is required in order to ensure uniform application of the law, or if an important point of law arises.

In the present case the Board refused the Appellant's request for referral because neither of these conditions is satisfied. Thus, the Appellant has not demonstrated, for example by reference to other, contradictory decisions of the Boards of Appeal, that a decision of the Enlarged Board of Appeal is required to ensure uniform application of the law. Nor has the Appellant identified an important point of law to be referred to the Enlarged Board.

Furthermore, the Board notes that the procedural issues referred to in the Appellant's questions are dealt with in the Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal. The Board refers in particular to Article 10b of the RPBA (version consolidating the amendments published in OJ EPO 1983,7; OJ EPO 1989, 361; OJ EPO 2000, 316, OJ EPO 2003, 61 and OJ 2004, 541) which stipulates that amendments to a party's case after it has filed its grounds of appeal or reply may be admitted and considered at the Board's discretion.

Thus the admission of such late-filed requests is a matter for the discretion of the Boards, which examine each case on its merits and which decides whether or not in the particular circumstances amendments to claims, and by extension new requests, are admissible. In the present situation the Board has exercised its discretion in agreement with the well-established jurisprudence of the Boards of Appeal (cf. Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO, 5th edition, VII.D.14.1 and 14.2, pages 640-649).

3. Clarity of the main request

3.1 The subject-matter of Claim 1 of the main request fulfils the requirements of Article 84 EPC.

Compared with the subject-matter of granted Claim 1, the subject-matter of this claim makes a clear distinction between physical and chemical blowing agents. Thus cyclopentane and isopentane, organic compounds which do not undergo any chemical modification during the foaming process but only vaporise, are physical blowing agents while water, which by reaction with the polyisocyanate forms carbon dioxide, is a chemical blowing agent (page 4, lines 23-24).

Additionally, the claimed subject-matter specifies that the physical blowing agent mixture consists of cyclopentane and isopentane.

3.2 Contrary to the arguments of the Respondents, the Board holds that the expression "consisting of cyclopentane and isopentane" is clear from its wording and would be considered by the skilled reader to relate to essentially pure products such as those exemplified on page 8, lines 34-35 (cyclopentane B: a 98% grade cyclopentane from Shell; isopentane: a 98% grade isopentane from Janssen).

Since the 98% grade products are commercially available from Shell and Janssen, any objection on the grounds of lack of sufficiency of disclosure with regard to these essentially pure products is baseless and document D15 thus irrelevant.

The Board therefore concludes that the claimed subject-matter is clear.

4. Article 123(2) EPC

4.1 The definition of the process for which protection was sought in the originally filed application (claim 1; page 2, lines 17-26) contained the technical feature of the saturated vapour pressure of the co-blowing agent in bar at Tuse (v.p.), which saturated vapour pressure complied with equation (i):

v.p >= 0.7 bar x Tuse/298K x C/100 (i)

The omission of this feature, which was already missing from Claim 1 as granted and is also missing from Claim 1 of the operative main request, amounts to an extension beyond the content of the originally filed application and thus contravenes the requirements of Article 123(2) EPC.

4.2 The Board is not persuaded by the arguments of the Appellant that by the restriction of co-blowing agents to isopentane and to a molar ratio cyclopentane/isopentane of between 80/20 and 30/70 equation (i) becomes redundant because, as set out below, the Appellant's assertion, that this restricted definition of the co-blowing agent is narrower in scope than the definition of equation (i), is at variance with the factual situation.

In order to arrive at this conclusion the Board has relied on the evidence submitted by Respondent I on 13 January 2005.

4.3 This technical evidence is illustrated by Figure 1 set out below. This Figure shows the variation of the saturated vapour pressure of isopentane (left axis) and of the mol % of isopentane (right axis) as a function of temperature.

The area between 20 and 70 mol % of isopentane corresponds to the amount of isopentane that can be used as a co-blowing agent in accordance with the subject-matter of Claim 1 of the main request.

The area below the curve Cmax is the amount of isopentane that can be used as a co-blowing agent in compliance with equation (i).

The Board notes that though the two areas overlap in the hatched area of the chart, there is a part of the area between the claimed mol% of isopentane which lies above the curve Cmax and which does not comply with equation (i), while it complies with the subject-matter of Claim 1 of the main request.

The Board thus concludes that the subject-matter of Claim 1 of the main request extends beyond the content of the originally filed application and therefore contravenes the requirements of Article 123(2) EPC.

FORMULA/TABLE/GRAPHIC

4.4 In view of the persuasive character of this evidence and in the absence of counter-evidence the Board is unable to agree with the Appellant's allegation that this technical evidence of Respondent I is wrong.

Furthermore, the Board does not agree with the Appellant's argument that the curve Cmax was not correct because the water which was present had not been recognised as a co-blowing agent, with the consequence that on the one hand its contribution to the calculation of Cmax had not been taken into account and on the other hand the correction factor of 0.7 bar in equation (i) had not been calculated for a co-blowing agent consisting exclusively of isopentane.

With regard to the constituents of the total blowing agent mixture in the gaseous phase after foaming, the Board remarks that the application as originally filed refers to blowing agents such as cyclopentane and co-blowing agents such as organic compounds or noble gases (page 2, lines 17-21, 32-35; page 3, line 4; page 4, lines 4-5), which are all physical blowing agents. Indeed, the description makes a conscious distinction between physical blowing agents and water, which is a chemical blowing agent and which is not mentioned as having to be taken into account for the purposes of equation (i) with regard to its contribution to the total blowing agent mixture in the gaseous phase after foaming.

In accordance with the above, the correction factor in equation (i) of 0.7 bar must be considered as being specifically applicable to the physical co-blowing agent.

4.5 Furthermore, the Board considers that the technical feature "the molar ratio cyclopentane/isopentane of between 80/20 and 30/70", though numerically finding support in the originally filed application (page 5, line 31), is disclosed exclusively in combination with a specific Tuse , namely that of 10ºC, which is the average operation temperature of a refrigerator (page 2, lines 3-4).

However, the specific Tuse is not comprised in the claimed subject-matter and the Board therefore concludes that removing the cyclopentane/isopentane molar ratio from its context, ie without its combination with a specific Tuse, results in an unallowable generalisation as it may now apply to any Tuse. This amounts to the extension of the originally filed subject-matter, which contravenes the requirements of Article 123(2) EPC.

4.6 The Board does not agree with the Appellant when it argues that the Tuse, which is a use feature of the foam, is irrelevant for the foam preparation process, an argument which leads to the assertion that its omission from the subject-matter of Claim 1 does not contravene the requirements of Article 123(2) EPC.

Contrary to the Appellant's argument, the Board considers that the claimed process is directed to the preparation of a foam for a specific utility which means that the feature of Tuse is essential, as it defines the product specially designed for this purpose.

4.7 As the subject-matter of Claim 1 of the main request does not find support in the originally filed application, the main request does not fulfil the requirements of Article 123(2) EPC.

5. Apportionment of costs

Respondent I has requested the apportionment of its costs under Article 104 EPC and Article 11a of RPBA because it had had to invest a considerable amount of time and effort in considering the numerous requests submitted by the Appellant on 21 December 2006, which requests were then withdrawn with the letter of 26 February 2007. That time and effort had thus been rendered useless. Respondent I considered such tactics to be an abuse of procedure.

While the Board understands the attitude of Respondent I, the Appellant's reaction to the objections raised by the Respondents submitted with their letters of 25 and 26 January 2007 respectively does not in the Board's judgment amount to an abuse. Indeed, the conduct of the Appellant, who by withdrawing the contested requests and by replacing them with other requests was apparently trying to overcome the objections which had been raised, is not as such objectionable; this conduct is to be considered as a legitimate defence of its case.

Order

ORDER

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The request to refer the above questions to the Enlarged Board of Appeal is refused.

3. Respondent I's request for an apportionment of costs is refused.

Footer - Service & support
  • Service & support
    • Website updates
    • Availability of online services
    • FAQ
    • Publications
    • Procedural communications
    • Contact us
    • Subscription centre
    • Official holidays
    • Glossary
Footer - More links
  • Jobs & careers
  • Press centre
  • Single Access Portal
  • Procurement
  • Boards of Appeal
Facebook
European Patent Office
EPO Jobs
Instagram
EuropeanPatentOffice
Linkedin
European Patent Office
EPO Jobs
EPO Procurement
X (formerly Twitter)
EPOorg
EPOjobs
Youtube
TheEPO
Footer
  • Legal notice
  • Terms of use
  • Data protection and privacy
  • Accessibility