T 2277/15 15-12-2020

Reasons for the Decision

1. The invention

The invention relates to a power injector such as the one shown in Figure 2A of the patent, reproduced below.

FORMULA/TABLE/GRAPHIC

The power injector (40) has a powerhead (50), a syringe plunger driver (for interacting with syringes 86a and 86b) and a graphical user interface (52).

Such power injectors are typically used to inject contrast media or radiopharmaceuticals during a medical imaging procedure such as computer tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, positron emission tomography, etc. The injection of such substances, which normally takes place under high pressure, has to be finely controlled so as to obtain good images and not to harm the patient.

According to claim 1 of the patent as granted, the power injector comprises control logic to generate a plurality of screens on the graphical user interface.

An exemplary screen is depicted in Figure 5 of the patent, reproduced below.

FORMULA/TABLE/GRAPHIC

Each screen (230) has a status message zone (266) for displaying a plurality of status messages. Each status message is reflective of the current status of the power injector. The status message zone appears in a common location on each screen. One of the status messages is displayed at all times in each status message zone that is being displayed.

2. Extension of subject-matter

The subject-matter of claim 1 of the patent as granted is mainly based on claims 28, 38, 39 and 40 of the application as filed.

2.1 In the impugned decision (points 8.1 to 8.3 of the reasons), the Opposition Division accepted the opponent's view that there was no basis in the application as filed for the feature of the claim according to which at least one status message was displayed at all times in each status message zone that was currently being displayed. More specifically, the Opposition Division held that the term "each" implied the simultaneous display of multiple screens.

The Board is not convinced that claim 1 of the patent as granted discloses a simultaneous display of multiple screens. In any case, page 2, lines 31 to 34 of the application as filed, referred to by the proprietor, even provides a basis for the Opposition Division's interpretation:

"At least one screen with a status message region, segment, or zone is presented on at least one graphical user interface. Any such screen with a status message zone may be displayed on a graphical user interface at a single location or at multiple locations. In one embodiment, at least one screen with a status message zone is displayed on a graphical user interface associated with a power injector (e.g., on a powerhead, on a remote console, or both)."

The last two sentences of this passage make it clear that at least one screen can be displayed on one or more graphical user interfaces. The disclosure that the screen is displayed "e.g., on a powerhead, on a remote console, or both" (emphasis added) implies a simultaneous display on these graphical user interfaces.

The opponent's argument that the passage required the graphical user interface to be on the powerhead or on the remote console is without merit. These graphical user interfaces are expressly listed as mere examples.

2.2 The opponent raised a further objection of added subject-matter against the wording of claim 1: "control logic configured to generate a plurality of screens (230) on said graphical user interface (52) and comprising a first screen". It argued that the application as filed did not disclose that the control logic comprised a screen.

However, the Board concurs with the Opposition Division's interpretation in the impugned decision (point 8.4) that this is not how the person skilled in the art would interpret the claim.

While the Board accepts the opponent's argument that a discrepancy between the claims and the description is not a valid reason to ignore a clear linguistic structure of the claim, it is pointed out that, according to established case law, a claim must be interpreted by the person skilled in the art in a technically sensible manner, taking into account the whole disclosure of the patent (Case Law of the Boards of Appeal, 9th edition 2019, Chapter II.A.6.1). At the same time, any term must be interpreted in context.

The person skilled in the art will understand that a control logic, in its usual meaning in the art, is something that can be configured to generate a screen, as defined in the claim, but not something that can comprise a screen.

This is consistent with the references to a control logic in the description. The patent describes the control logic in relation to Figure 3, as an element of a power injector control system (paragraphs [0046] and [0047]):

"...The power injector control system 120 may include one or more data entry devices 122 of any appropriate configuration and/or type (e.g., a keyboard, a mouse, a touch screen display). One or more of these data entry devices 122 may be operatively interconnected with a power control injector module or power injector control logic 124. The power injector control logic 124 may be of any appropriate form and/or configuration, for instance software, hardware, firmware, and any combination thereof..."

"The power injector control logic 124 may be configured to include at least one fluid delivery or injection protocol 126 (e.g., for a medical application, and which may be referred to as a medical fluid delivery procedure or operation) and a status messaging protocol 140, and each of which may be in the form of a programmed sequence..."

While the power injector control system may include data entry devices, such as a touch screen, the control logic is essentially described as a processing module consisting of "for instance, software, hardware, firmware, and any combination thereof", for the execution of program instructions. From a technical point of view, such a processing module cannot comprise any screen as defined in claim 1 of the patent as granted.

Hence for the person skilled in the art, who excludes possible interpretations which although grammatically correct do not make sense technically, the only sensible manner of interpreting the claim wording is that the plurality of screens which can be generated by the control logic comprises the first screen. This is also what is disclosed by the application as filed, e.g. claim 38.

Whether, in other contexts, the term "control logic" could include elements other than just a processor, as the opponent argued, is of no relevance, since this argument disregards both the usual meaning of this expression and the specific technical context of the patent.

2.3 The opponent further argued that there was no basis in the application as filed for the status message zone and the status messages both being displayed. However, the combination of claims 28, 38 and 39 of the application as filed provides a basis for this feature of claim 1 of the patent as granted. In particular, claim 39 recites that the status message zone appears in a common location on each of the plurality of screens.

2.4 The opponent also submitted that there was no basis in the application as filed for the feature of claim 1 of the patent as granted: "each said screen that is generated on said graphical user interface while said power injector is powered on comprises a status message zone".

However, this feature, which refers to a condition of use during which the screens are displayed, is based on claim 38 together with page 13, lines 10 to 13 of the application as filed:

"The injector status may be updated on any appropriate basis in accordance with the status messaging protocol 140 of Figure 4 (e.g., periodically). In the illustrated embodiment, the injector status is determined (142) and displayed (144) so long as the power injector is not in a 'powered off' condition or state (step 146). That is, powering off the power injector may be used to terminate the status messaging protocol 140 (step 148)."

This passage has to be read with reference to Figure 4, reproduced below.

FORMULA/TABLE/GRAPHIC

In this context, as the proprietor submitted, the person skilled in the art recognises only two possible conditions of the power injector: a powered-off condition which terminates the determination of the status of the power injector, and an alternative, powered-on (or not powered-off) condition, in which the status of the power injector is determined and displayed as defined in claim 1 of the patent as granted.

According to the claim, in the powered-on condition each screen comprises a status message zone and the control logic is configured to display a plurality of status messages reflective of the current status of the power injector in the status message zone of the first screen. This implies the execution of a status messaging protocol by the control logic while the power injector is in a powered-on condition (as described on page 13, lines 10 to 14 of the application as filed). As the proprietor also submitted, the booting of the power injector does not belong to the powered-on condition within the meaning of the claim, as during booting the control logic is not yet ready to execute such a protocol. Since the claim is not concerned with booting, the opponent's argument relating to the boot screen which does not display any status message zone is without relevance for the assessment of added subject-matter of the claim.

2.5 It follows that the subject-matter of claim 1 of the patent as granted does not extend beyond the content of the application as filed. Hence, the ground for opposition under Article 100(c) EPC raised by the opponent does not prejudice the maintenance of the patent as granted.

3. Sufficiency of disclosure

The opponent's objection insufficient disclosure is based on the assertion that the subject-matter of claim 1 of the patent as granted covered a boot screen with a status message zone.

However, as explained in point 2.4 above, the claimed condition of the power injector being powered on, in which the control logic is configured to generate a plurality of screens on the graphical user interface, does not include such a booting condition.

It follows that the opponent's objection is without merit and the ground for opposition under Article 100(b) EPC raised by the opponent does not prejudice the maintenance of the patent as granted.

4. Novelty and inventive step

4.1 The opponent submitted that the proprietor's appeal was not substantiated with respect to novelty of the main request.

However, on page 3 of its statement of grounds of appeal, the proprietor argued on novelty of the subject-matter of claim 1 of auxiliary request 1B considered in the impugned decision. Some of the arguments concern what should be understood by the claimed display of status messages. These arguments also apply to claim 1 of the patent as granted, which also claims the display of status messages.

It follows that the proprietor's appeal is substantiated with respect to novelty of the main request.

4.2 The opponent argued that the subject-matter of claim 1 of the patent as granted lacked novelty over D1.

D1 discloses a power injector comprising a powerhead, a syringe plunger driver, a graphical user interface and control logic configured to generate a plurality of screens on said graphical user interface (Figures 1, 2 and 5 to 5Z). Figures 5 and 5A are reproduced below.

FORMULA/TABLE/GRAPHIC

FORMULA/TABLE/GRAPHIC

The plurality of screens comprises a first screen (for example the screen of Figure 5) and the screens comprise a status message zone (for example tab 58 in the upper parts of the screens of Figure 5 and 5A) in which a plurality of status messages is displayed at a separate time and are reflective of current statuses of the power injector. The status message zone appears in a common location on the screens.

In the impugned decision (points 12.1 to 12.3 of the reasons), the Opposition Division endorsed the opponent's view that displaying any screen implied displaying a status message of the power injector. More specifically, the inherent status message was that the power injector was switched on.

The Board considers this interpretation to be out of context. It would make most of the claim wording technically meaningless and is not supported by the patent as a whole. The mere display of a screen would already imply the claim definition of the status message zone, its position and the status message being always displayed.

The person skilled in the art rather will understand that the status message concerns a status of a procedure being carried out with the power injector, in accordance with what is consistently described in the patent.

D1 does not disclose that the status message zone appears in a common location on each screen that is generated on the graphical user interface while the power injector is powered on and that at least one status message is displayed at all times in each status message zone that is currently being displayed. For example, the screens shown in Figures 5B and 5C, which can be generated by the control logic of D1, do not comprise such a status message zone. Figures 5B and 5C are reproduced below.

FORMULA/TABLE/GRAPHIC

FORMULA/TABLE/GRAPHIC

The opponent's argument that claim 1 of the patent as granted merely required that each screen that was actually generated on the graphical user interface (at least during one procedure) be one of the plurality of screens is not accepted.

The claim wording "each said screen that is generated on said graphical user interface while said power injector is powered on" expressly refers to the general condition of the power injector being powered on. Hence it must relate to all the screens that can be generated by the control logic in this general condition.

4.3 The opponent also argued that the subject-matter of claim 1 of the patent as granted lacked novelty over D3.

D3 discloses a power injector comprising a powerhead, a syringe plunger driver, a graphical user interface and control logic configured to generate a plurality of screens on said graphical user interface (Figures 1 to 6).

For the same reasons as those discussed in relation to D1, D3 does not disclose a status message zone which appears in a common location on each screen that is generated on the graphical user interface while the power injector is powered on. Moreover, no status message is displayed at all times in each status message zone that is currently being displayed.

The screen shown in Figure 3 reproduced below is for manually entering control parameters for an injection procedure to be performed. A status message is not necessarily displayed (page 5, line 18 to page 6, line 2).

FORMULA/TABLE/GRAPHIC

4.4 It follows that the subject-matter of claim 1 of the patent as granted is novel (Article 54(1) and (2) EPC) over each of D1 and D3. Hence, the ground for opposition of lack of novelty under Article 100(a) EPC raised by the opponent does not prejudice the maintenance of the patent as granted.

4.5 In appeal, the opponent did not provide any arguments against inventive step of the subject-matter of claim 1 of the patent as granted. As regards the allegation, made in the first-instance proceedings, that the type of information displayed according to the claim was a non-technical feature, the Board notes that starting from D1 or D3, as the proprietor submitted, the distinguishing features, of the display of a status message zone appearing in a common location on each screen that is generated on the graphical user interface while the power injector is powered on and containing at least a status message which is displayed at all times, have a specific technical implication for the correct operation of the power injector. They have the technical effect that the user can easily monitor the functionality of the power injector, identify incorrect or unsafe operation, and perform the necessary remedial action.

The objective technical problem solved by these features is therefore to provide a power injector which is safer to use.

The prior art relied on by the opponent does not disclose the distinguishing features.

It follows that the subject-matter of claim 1 of the patent as granted involves an inventive step (Article 56 EPC).

Hence the ground for opposition of lack of inventive step under Article 100(a) EPC raised by the opponent does not prejudice the maintenance of the patent as granted.

5. It follows that none of the grounds for opposition invoked by the opponent prejudices the maintenance of the patent as granted.

Since both parties announced that they would not be represented at the scheduled oral proceedings, in accordance with the established case law (Case Law of the Boards of Appeal, Ninth Edition 2019, III.C.4.3.2) there was no need for the Board to hold oral proceedings.