T 0394/23 (User-friendly identifier for monitoring wetness events/ESSITY) 05-03-2025
Download and more information:
Data capture and management system
Paul Hartmann AG ("opponent 1")
Henkel AG & Co. KGaA ("opponent 2")
I. This case concerns the appeals filed by the proprietor and opponent 1 against the opposition division's interlocutory decision to maintain the opposed patent as amended in accordance with an "auxiliary request 6a" filed during the opposition proceedings.
II. Oral proceedings before the board were held on 5 March 2025. The final requests of the parties were as follows.
- The proprietor requested that the appealed decision be set aside and that the oppositions be rejected.
- Opponent 1 requested that the appealed decision be set aside and that the patent be revoked.
At the end of the oral proceedings, the board's decision was announced.
III. Claim 1 of the patent as granted reads as follows:
"An incontinence data capture and management system (10) comprising:
a data logger (1a, 1b, 1c) configured to be detachably attached to or located in the vicinity of an absorbent article;
a data link (13, 14, 15) between the data logger and a data collection hub (3); and
a user interface (12) for permitting an operator to access the data collection hub from a remote location,
the data logger being configured to transmit a data package to the data collection hub at predetermined intervals, the data package including a unique device identifier of the data logger,
characterized in that:
the data logger is marked with a user-friendly identifier (A01, A02, A03) for identifying the data logger, and the data collection hub includes a correlation means for correlating the
user-friendly identifier of a data logger with the unique device identifier of that data logger, the user-friendly identifier being shorter than the unique device identifier."
1. MAIN REQUEST
Granted claim 1 comprises the following limiting features:
M1.1 An incontinence data capture and management system comprising:
M1.2 a data logger configured to be detachably attached to or located in the vicinity of an absorbent article;
M1.3 a data link between the data logger and a data collection hub;
M1.4 a user interface for permitting an operator to access the data collection hub from a remote location,
M1.5 the data logger being configured to transmit a data package to the data collection hub at predetermined intervals, the data package including a unique device identifier of the data logger,
M1.6 the data logger is marked with a user-friendly identifier for identifying the data logger, and the data collection hub includes a correlation means for correlating the user-friendly identifier of a data logger with the unique device identifier of that data logger,
M1.7 the user-friendly identifier being shorter than the unique device identifier.
1.1 Claim 1 - added subject-matter (Articles 100(c) and 123(2) EPC)
1.1.1 The board concurs with the opposition division and with the opponents that at least feature M1.7 introduces an unallowable intermediate generalisation of the patent's original content.
1.1.2 The proprietor put forward that the original disclosure (see page 5, lines 8 to 11 and page 6, lines 5 to 11 as filed) made clear to the skilled reader that the problems addressed by the invention arise from the
"non-user-friendly nature" of the unique device identifier, in particular by virtue of its length. A long unique identifier was not easy to remember and so, as a consequence, was a "non-user-friendly number". This understanding was reinforced in the disclosed embodiments at page 9, lines 26 to 30 and at page 12, lines 18 to 24. By providing the "data loggers" with a
three-digit user-friendly identifier, there was no need for nursing staff to deal with the long 15-digit IMEI number, which was difficult to remember, and could easily be noted incorrectly. The specific use of three digits and fifteen digits was advantageous but not essential. For instance, the unique device identifier could be a MAC address with six groups of two hexadecimal digits or the IMSI, which was globally unique to the SIM card (see page 5, lines 21 to 33 as filed). It was clear from the original disclosure that the length of the unique identifier was the essential element which rendered the unique identifier as being "non-user-friendly". Accordingly, when the skilled reader considered how, in technical terms, the
user-friendly identifier was to differ from the unique device identifier, the skilled person took the understanding that user-friendliness was inversely correlated with length, in the context of the original application, i.e. the "user-friendly identifier" should be shorter than the "unique device identifier".
1.1.3 This is not convincing. Although the board agrees that the "length" may indeed be presented in the original disclosure of the patent as one of the indicators of
"user-friendliness", the application as filed does not explain how short - in absolute terms - or how much shorter than the unique device identifier - in relative terms - an identifier should be to indeed qualify as "user-friendly". Nor does it explain which other characteristics of an identifier should contribute to its "user-friendliness". Rather, as submitted by opponent 1, "user-friendly" is a subjective qualifier devoid of any particular objective (technical) constraints. And even if the application as filed presented a "long" identifier as "non-user-friendly", it cannot be logically derived therefrom that a "shorter" identifier should necessarily be
"user-friendly". In other words, even if a certain data length (e.g. 15 digits) may be credited with a certain quality (i.e. "non-user friendly"), this does not necessarily mean that a "shorter" data length (e.g. 14 digits) has the opposite quality ("user-friendly").
1.2 Consequently, the ground for opposition under Article 100(c) EPC in conjunction with Article 123(2) EPC prejudices the maintenance of the patent as granted.
2. Since there is no allowable claim request on file, the patent must be revoked.
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The decision under appeal is set aside.
2. The patent is revoked.