T 2105/12 24-10-2016

1. During the oral proceedings, the respondent withdrew its earlier request that the appeal be held inadmissible. Consistent with the Board's preliminary positive assessment of the admissibility of the appeal, as communicated to the parties with the summons to oral proceedings, the Board considers that the appeal is admissible.

2. Public availability of documents E1 and E24

2.1 Document E24 is a user guide for the TheraSense "FreeStyle Tracker Diabetes Management System". It carries a copyright date of 2002 on the footer section of its pages which predates the earliest priority date of the patent in suit (5 September 2006) by about four years. Document E1 is a testing guide for the same diabetes management system, also bearing a copyright date of 2002 on its last page.

2.2 The appellant argued that E1 and E24 should not be considered to be prior art as the copyright date of 2002 was not sufficient evidence of public disclosure, in particular since the respondent had not provided any evidence that the TheraSense diabetes management system was available to the public before the priority date. Since the system was not available or free to be marketed in the United States, the reasoning of decision T 861/04 relating to the copyright of television user manuals was not applicable to the present case involving the copyright of user guides for an unknown glucose tester.

The Board disagrees. The respondent provided detailed evidence proving that the TheraSense "FreeStyle Tracker Diabetes Management System" began to be marketed in the United States in 2002. E28 demonstrates that the system had been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in June 2002 and articles E29 to E35 provide further details relating to the marketing of the system in the United States as of 2002.

In view of these facts, the present case, like that underlying decision T 861/04, concerns a device which was free to be marketed. Therefore, as in decision T 861/04 (point 2.6 of the Reasons), the Board finds it highly unlikely that the diabetes management system and its user guide E24 and testing guide E1 would have been kept in stock for about four years following FDA approval.

2.3 From the above the Board concludes that E1 and E24 were made available to the public before the priority date and are therefore comprised in the state of the art according to Article 54(2) EPC.

3. Main request - Novelty

3.1 Document E1 is a blood glucose testing guide for the TheraSense FreeStyle Tracker System for measuring blood glucose (page 2). The analytical meter in E1 comprises two elements, which are shown on page 12: a visor PDA (Personal Digital Assistant) and a measurement module insertable into the PDA. The PDA with the inserted measurement module together form a module which equates to what claim 1 of the granted patent defines as an "analytical meter ... comprising a display-based tutorial module" with a "user interface that includes a visual display" on which instructions to the user are presented, as illustrated on pages 13, 14 and 17 of E1. For example, on page 13 the display presents the image of a test strip above the insertion slot on the module. This instructs the user to insert the test strip into the module. Likewise, on page 14 the display shows a calibration screen instructing the user to tap a calibration code corresponding to the test strip. Such instructions concerning the operation and use of the meter constitute a "tutorial" as defined in claim 1. It is moreover implicit that the tutorial is stored in a "memory unit" of the "display-based tutorial module" which has a "microprocessor unit configured for controlling and coordinating at least the visual display and the memory unit". Indeed, on page 7 of E1, reference is made to the "1.2 program version" used in the FreeStyle Tracker System, and the image of this page depicts the PDA display carrying icons of this program. Therefore, the Board is not convinced by the appellant's argument that according to E1 the images of the tutorial were transmitted to the meter from a remote location.

The tutorial disclosed in E1 may be said to have a "plurality of chapters" as defined in claim 1. The notion of a "chapter" entails no specific limitative technical character so that, for example, page 13 may be considered to be a chapter about the insertion of the test strip into the meter, page 14 may be regarded as another chapter concerning the setting of the calibration code, and page 17 as yet another chapter about applying blood to the test strip. As shown in E1, each of these "chapters" contains a tutorial image, and the microprocessor unit is configured for displaying a tutorial image after an "event" has occurred. Such an "event" is considered to encompass any action related to the operation of the meter, such as the pressing of a button or the insertion of a test strip, consistent with claims 3 and 6 and paragraphs [0018] and [0026] of the contested patent. In particular, as indicated at the bottom of page 13 of E1, after the "event" of tapping the Measurement icon on the Logbook or Diary screens (pages 20 and 21), the display shows the screen next to point 1 on page 13. As indicated under point 1 on page 14, the (calibration) image on page 14 is displayed following the "event" of inserting a test strip and, as indicated at the bottom of page 14, the image of the logbook of page 20 is displayed following the "event" of pressing the Cancel icon. Hence, E1 also anticipates the feature of claim 1 according to which "the user interface, microprocessor unit and memory unit are operatively linked and configured for event-driven chapter-based display of the tutorial images to a user on the visual display".

3.2 From the above it follows the subject-matter of claim 1 of the main request (patent as granted) lacks novelty in view of document E1.

3.3 The aforementioned disclosure of pages 7, 12, 13, 14, 17, 20 and 21 of E1 is likewise given on pages 4-14 to 4-19, 4-26, 4-32 and 4-33 of document E24, a user manual for the TheraSense FreeStyle Tracker Diabetes Management System which explains the use of the meter in even greater detail. Hence, the subject-matter of claim 1 of the main request is likewise anticipated by E24 for analogous reasons.

3.4 As a consequence, the ground for opposition under Article 100(a) EPC in combination with Article 54 EPC prejudices the maintenance of the patent as granted.

4. Auxiliary request 1 - Admissibility

4.1 The respondent requested the Board to exercise its discretion under Article 12(4) RPBA not to admit auxiliary request 1.

4.2 Auxiliary request 1 was filed with the statement of grounds of appeal and its claim 1 is in substance identical to claim 1 of auxiliary request 1 underlying the impugned decision. Only editorial or formal amendments, such as a different two-part form, distinguish the present claim 1 from the one decided upon by the Opposition Division. At oral proceedings before the Board, the respondent actually shared this view. Moreover, the statement of grounds of appeal contains reasons for contesting the finding of the Opposition Division that the subject-matter claimed lacked novelty over E24. The Board also finds that the Opposition Division correctly exercised its discretion to admit the late-filed auxiliary request 1 then on file, providing detailed reasons in the impugned decision (point 5) for not sharing the opponent's prima-facie assessment of non-allowability.

4.3 Consequently, the Board fails to see any valid reason for not admitting auxiliary request 1.

5. Auxiliary request 1 - Novelty

5.1 Claim 1 of auxiliary request 1 compared with that of the main request additionally requires that each of the chapters contains a plurality of tutorial images and that "the display-based tutorial module includes a user-operable tutorial button and the event-driven chapter-based display of the tutorial images is driven by an event of the user depressing the user operable tutorial button, the user operable tutorial button is configured such that depression thereof increments the displayed tutorial image within a given chapter of the tutorial" [emphasis added].

5.2 As discussed during the oral proceedings, E24 presents on page 3-19 different screens, each of which deals with a separate aspect of the use of the meter, for example a screen concerning the Preferences Menu and a screen concerning the Logbook. Thus, each of these screens provides the user with instructions about the operation and use of a specific aspect of the meter. Consequently, each of these screens may be said to be within a specific "chapter" of a "tutorial". As seen on page 3-19, each of the screens comprises, inter alia, a Next icon which, when pressed, takes the user to the next screen or "tutorial image" within that "tutorial chapter". The Next icon is thus, in the language of the claim, a "user-operable tutorial button" included in the display-based tutorial module which, when pressed, allows the displayed tutorial image to be "incremented" to show the next tutorial image in that tutorial chapter.

5.3 The appellant argued during the oral proceedings that the screens shown on page 3-19 were introductory screens which the user would use at the beginning of the operation of the meter, but not during measurement of the bodily fluid sample. They were therefore not images of a tutorial providing instructions on how to use the meter.

The Board is not persuaded by this argument. As indicated above (point 3.1), the Board considers that a display of indications or instructions about the operation and use of the meter is a "tutorial image". The term "tutorial image" does not entail the specific restriction of being related to the physical measurement of the bodily fluid sample, as argued by the appellant. Moreover, screens of the Preferences Menu or of the Logbook clearly relate to the operation and use of the meter and are thus tutorial images.

5.4 It follows that the subject-matter of claim 1 of auxiliary request 1 lacks novelty within the meaning of Article 54 EPC.

6. Auxiliary requests 2 and 3 - Admissibility

6.1 The respondent requested the Board to exercise its discretion under Article 13(1) RPBA not to admit auxiliary requests 2 and 3.

6.2 The appellant filed auxiliary requests 2 and 3 with letter dated 2 May 2013, about five months after the statement of grounds of appeal, explaining that they were being filed following oral proceedings before the Opposition Division concerning a "sister patent" (EP-B-1 897 492) during which very similar claims had been discussed and held to be allowable by the Opposition Division (giving rise to appeal T 537/13).

6.3 The Board rejects the appellant's argument that filing "similar claims" in opposition proceedings of a "sister patent" is a valid justification for admitting their late introduction into the present appeal proceedings which concern a different patent. Under Article 12(2) RPBA, a party should present its complete appeal case with the statement of grounds of appeal. Thereafter, the admissibility of any amendment to the party's case is left to the Board's discretion in accordance with Article 13(1) RPBA. This discretion must be exercised in view of, inter alia, the complexity of the new subject-matter, the current state of the proceedings and the need for procedural economy.

6.4 The respondent is in principle right in observing that auxiliary request 2 does not just restrict the subject-matter claimed in the preceding requests, but claims subject-matter going in a somewhat different direction. However, since the amended appellant's case contains a total of just three auxiliary requests of which only auxiliary request 2 "diverges" somewhat from the preceding requests, the Board considers that the case's complexity is not unduly increased. Moreover, auxiliary requests 2 and 3 were filed about five months after the statement of grounds of appeal, but still about 3.5 years before the Board issued the summons to oral proceedings, so that the respondent-opponent and the Board had sufficient time to consider the new requests. The Board was moreover unable to establish, in just a prima-facie assessment, that they were inherently unclear and contained added subject-matter, as the respondent argued. The Board considered, instead, that the assessment of the allowability of the requests required a thorough examination and discussion of the raised objections.

6.5 As a consequence, the Board decided to admit auxiliary requests 2 and 3 in the exercise of its discretion under Article 13(1) RPBA.

7. Auxiliary requests 2 and 3 - Clarity

7.1 Claim 1 of auxiliary requests 2 and 3 additionally requires that "the display of each tutorial chapter is driven by one or more unique events that can occur during use of the kit or analytical meter, wherein depression of the user-operable tutorial button is an event for the purposes of displaying tutorial images in an event-driven chapter based manner, and wherein the depression of the tutorial button is rendered unique by its context, so that the depression of the tutorial button drives the display of different tutorial chapters depending upon the other events that have preceded it" [emphasis added].

7.2 The claims of the patent as granted contain the expressions "event-driven chapter-based display" (claim 1) and "event-driven chapter-based display driven by an event of the user depressing the user operable tutorial button" (dependent claim 3). However, the expressions highlighted above, defining "one or more unique events" and the depression of the tutorial button being "rendered unique by its context", were, instead, extracted from the description (paragraphs [0018] and [0019]). Hence, the clarity of these expressions is to be examined (G 9/91, Reasons 19).

7.3 In the context of the analytical meter as defined in claim 1 of the granted patent, the term "event" appears to encompass any action related to the operation of the meter. As indicated under point 3.1 above, examples of such events according to the patent are, inter alia, the depression of the user-operable tutorial button (claim 3), the insertion of an analytical strip (claim 6) and the dosing of bodily fluid (claim 7).

7.4 However, the meaning of the feature of a "unique event", or, a fortiori, of a plurality of "unique events", is unclear. Firstly, the skilled person is at a loss to know which of the generally accepted meanings of the term "unique" should apply, that is, he would not know whether the event is meant to be the only one of its kind, whether a remarkable or extraordinary event is meant, etc. This uncertainty alone does not allow to precisely ascertain the subject-matter for which protection is sought.

7.5 Moreover, none of these possible meanings seems to be free of contradictions within the present technical context. In fact, if "unique" is to carry the meaning of the only one of its kind, the claimed alternative of a plurality of such events is an oxymoron. If a "unique" event is to be understood as meaning a remarkable or extraordinary event, the definition is unclear since it relies on subjective judgment to establish how remarkable or extraordinary the event needs to be in order to be considered as "unique". Furthermore, it appears contradictory that the events of depressing the tutorial button, inserting an analytical test strip and dosing of a bodily fluid, which claims 3, 6 and 7 of the patent define as (normal) events, are described in paragraphs [0031] and [0039] of the patent as examples of "unique events". It is also noted that paragraphs [0019] and [0026] mentioned by the appellant do not even give a hint as to how the term "unique" is to be interpreted.

7.6 A further expression in the claim reciting that the event of depressing the tutorial button "is rendered unique by its context" is likewise unclear. In this expression the lack of clarity of the term "unique" is compounded by defining the uniqueness of an event in terms of its "context" without specifying what the context is.

7.7 The appellant argued that paragraph [0018] explained the meaning of this expression by stating: "an event is rendered unique by its context, i.e., by the other events that have preceded it". It was therefore clear that the "context" was given by the events that have preceded it. This was explained in detail in the description of Figure 4.

This argument does not persuade the Board. Firstly, the claim does not contain the alleged equivalence between "context" and events that preceded the event "rendered unique". What the claim defines is, instead, that the event of depressing the tutorial button "is rendered unique by its context, so that [as a consequence] the depression of the tutorial button drives the display of different tutorial chapters depending upon the other events that have preceded it" [emphasis added]. Furthermore, to say that an event is rendered unique by other events that preceded it appears to be a circular argument, since in that case every event preceded by another event would be a unique event. Finally, contrary to the appellant's view, neither Figure 4 nor its description (paragraph [0020]) contains any further aspects which might help in understanding the terminology objected to.

7.8 The Board therefore concludes that the meaning of the features objected to remains obscure.

Hence, claim 1 of auxiliary requests 2 and 3 does not fulfil the requirement of clarity, in breach of Article 84 EPC.