4.2.2 Zweite und dritte Stufe des Konvergenzansatzes: Änderungen des Beschwerdevorbringens im Sinne von Artikel 13 (1) und (2) VOBK 2020
Da ein zurückgenommener Antrag nicht mehr Gegenstand des Verfahrens ist, ist seine Zulassung (Berücksichtigung), wenn er in einem späteren Verfahrensstadium erneut gestellt wird, den gleichen verfahrensrechtlichen Normen unterworfen, wie ein gänzlich neuer Antrag (T 2692/18 mit Verweis auf T 1695/14 und T 1421/20). In dem in T 2692/18 zu entscheidenden Fall war demnach Art. 13 (2) VOBK 2020 anzuwenden, da der ursprünglich bereits als Reaktion auf die Beschwerdeerwiderung eingereichte Antrag nach der Mitteilung gemäß Art. 15 (1) VOBK 2020 zunächst durch andere Anträge ersetzt worden war und erst in der mündlichen Verhandlung wieder gestellt wurde.
In T 1421/20 lagen Hilfsanträge 1 bis 5 der angefochtenen Entscheidung zugrunde, doch die Kammer stellte fest, dass sie zu Beginn der Beschwerde ersetzt (d. h. zurückgenommen) wurden und somit nicht Teil des Beschwerdevorbringens des Beschwerdeführers (Anmelders) waren. Somit betrachtete Kammer ihre Wiedereinführung (nach der Zustellung der Ladung zur mündlichen Verhandlung) als Änderung des Vorbringens des Beschwerdeführers, deren Zulassung dem Ermessen der Kammer unterliegt (Art. 13 VOBK 2020). Siehe auch T 798/18.
- T 2124/21
Zusammenfassung
In T 2124/21 the appellant (applicant) had filed with the statement of grounds of appeal a main request and a first auxiliary request that superseded the sole request subject of the appealed decision. In its communication under Art. 15(1) RPBA, the board informed the appellant of its preliminary intention not to admit these requests, inter alia because no reason had been given why these amendments were filed only on appeal, and because prima facie they contained added subject-matter. In its written reply the appellant withdrew the main request and the first auxiliary request and requested, by reference, the grant of a patent based on the claims of the request subject of the appealed decision.
The board first explained that it was with the main request and first auxiliary request that the resubmitted sole request subject of the appealed decision had to be compared when establishing whether it was an "amendment" to the appeal case. Since the sole request had been abandoned by the statement of grounds of appeal it was not pending anymore when resubmitted. Therefore, it could not be the object of comparison for the purposes of Art. 13(2) RPBA. The board then pointed out that, since claim 1 of each of the main request and the first auxiliary request had an additional feature compared with claim 1 of the sole request subject of the appealed decision, the resubmitted request constituted an amendment to the appeal case within the meaning of Art. 13(2) RPBA.
Regarding the question whether there were exceptional circumstances justified by cogent reasons, the board, citing Art. 12(2) and (3) RPBA, explained that the appellant had made a choice, at the outset of appeal proceedings, not to seek a review of the appealed decision and thereby prevented the board from pursuing the primary object of the appeal proceedings (cf. Art. 12(1)(a) and (b) and (2) RPBA). In the board's view, it could not be expected to begin the judicial review of the appealed decision only at the last stage of the appeal proceedings.
Moreover, the board held that the fact that the amendment in question did not imply a substantial technical change of the claimed subject-matter, was not a circumstance that justified admittance of the sole request. Rather, the only exceptional aspect of the case was the appellant's own choice to avoid the board's review of the appealed decision until the last stage of the appeal proceedings. The objection raised in the preliminary opinion against the then freshly filed main request and first auxiliary request was not an exceptional circumstance.
Since there was no admitted request on file the appeal was dismissed.