6. Formalprüfung
Overview
6. Formalprüfung
Ist der Patentanmeldung ein Anmeldetag zuerkannt worden, so prüft das EPA laut Art. 90 (3) EPÜ nach Maßgabe der Ausführungsordnung, ob folgenden Erfordernissen entsprochen worden ist:
- Art. 14 EPÜ zur Sprache der Patentanmeldung (s. Kapitel III.F.1.),
- Art. 78 EPÜ zu den Erfordernissen der europäischen Patentanmeldung (s. dieses Kapitel IV.A.6.1.),
- Art. 81 EPÜ zur Erfindernennung (s. dieses Kapitel IV.A.6.2.),
sowie den in der Ausführungsordnung festgelegten Erfordernissen und gegebenenfalls
- Art. 88 EPÜ zur Inanspruchnahme der Priorität (s. dieses Kapitel IV.A.8.),
- Art. 133 EPÜ zu den allgemeinen Grundsätzen der Vertretung (s. Kapitel III.V.).
- sonstigen in der Ausführungsordnung festgelegten Erfordernissen (s. dieses Kapitel IV.A.6.3.).
Stellt das EPA behebbare Mängel fest, so gibt es dem Anmelder nach Art. 90 (4) EPÜ Gelegenheit, diese Mängel zu beseitigen. Wird ein nach Art. 90 (3) EPÜ festgestellter Mangel nicht beseitigt, so wird die Patentanmeldung zurückgewiesen, sofern das EPÜ keine andere Rechtsfolge vorsieht (Art. 90 (5) EPÜ).
In J 18/08 stellte die Kammer fest, dass wenn die Anmeldung nach Art. 90 (5) EPÜ zurückgewiesen wird, der Mangel, der zur Zurückweisungsentscheidung geführt hat, im Beschwerdeverfahren beseitigt werden kann. Wird gegen eine Zurückweisung nach Art. 90 (5) EPÜ Beschwerde eingelegt, muss die Kammer also prüfen, ob der festgestellte Mangel beseitigt wurde. Diese Sache unterschied sich von den Fällen, in denen ein Fristversäumnis automatisch dazu führt, dass die Anmeldung als zurückgenommen gilt. Dann tritt die Rechtsfolge nämlich automatisch ein, wenn eine erforderliche Handlung nicht innerhalb einer bestimmten Frist vorgenommen wird, ohne dass eine Entscheidung über die Zurückweisung der Anmeldung ergeht (R. 112 EPÜ).
- J 9/20
Catchword:
A machine is not an inventor within the meaning of the EPC.
- J 8/20
Catchword:
A machine is not an inventor within the meaning of the EPC
- J 11/20
Zusammenfassung
In J 11/20 the applicant appealed a decision of the Receiving Section refusing their application under Art. 90(5) EPC in conjunction with R. 58 EPC. The sole reason for the refusal was that the four amended drawings filed by the applicant to remedy formal deficiencies in the application documents were not in agreement with the application documents as originally filed and, despite the invitation by the Receiving Section, the applicant had not corrected this deficiency in due time.
In the statement of grounds of appeal, the appellant had objected that the Receiving Section had committed a substantial procedural violation by exceeding its competence when issuing the communication concerning the formal requirements of the application documents by addressing substantive matters that belonged to the competence of the examining division. Thus, the first question addressed by the Legal Board concerned the competence of the Receiving Section and, in particular, whether the Receiving Section had acted ultra vires.
The Legal Board recalled that the Receiving Section was responsible for the examination on filing and the examination as to formal requirements of the application (Art. 16 EPC). It was established case law that the responsibilities of the Receiving Section did not involve any technical examination of the application (J 5/12, J 7/97, J 33/89 and J 4/85).
Within this framework, the Legal Board explained that the Receiving Section was competent under R. 58 EPC to identify inconsistencies in the application documents which were immediately apparent from the face of the documents, including whether formal discrepancies were present between amended documents and the documents as originally filed, provided no technical knowledge was required.
In the case in hand, the deficiency noted by the Receiving Section was of a purely formal nature and did not involve any assessment in terms of disclosure. Hence, no procedural violation was committed in this respect.
The Legal Board also assessed whether the Receiving Section should have granted interlocutory revision of the appealed decision. The Legal Board referred to J 18/08 and explained that a deficiency on which a decision under Art. 90(5) EPC is based could be corrected at the appeal stage. Such a case was different from the situation where the non-observance of a time limit automatically led to the application being deemed to be withdrawn, i.e. where the legal consequence automatically ensued when an act required within a specific time limit was not performed.
In the case in hand, the Legal Board observed that, when the appeal was filed, the deficiency had already been remedied, albeit late, with the filing of the correct drawings. Considering that the ground for refusal of the application under Art. 90(5) EPC had been remedied, the Legal Board established that the Receiving Section should have granted interlocutory revision in accordance with Art. 109 EPC.
- Jahresbericht: Rechtsprechung 2022
- Zusammenfassungen der Entscheidungen in der Verfahrensprache