Selected decisions
The list of “Selected decisions” alerts users to all newly published decisions for which a headnote or a catchword has been provided by the board. Usually, a board will add a headnote or catchword if it wishes to provide a brief summary of a particular point of law or to draw attention to an important part of the reasons for the decision. The list contains all decisions with a headnote or catchword published in the last three years and can be viewed by year by selecting the year from the menu on the left.
The list below contains all decisions with a headnote or catchword that have been released for publication in the last six months (newest first).
February 2024
The deletion of claims is not excluded from the scope of the term "amendment" in Article 13 RPBA 2020.
The impact of a particular change to the appeal case on procedural economy is not a criterion for deciding whether that change is an "amendment" within the meaning of Article 13 RPBA 2020. Rather, the impact on procedural economy is a criterion when a board, at the next step of the assessment, exercises its discretion to decide whether a change that has already been qualified as an "amendment" is to be taken into account.
See reasons 7.
Inventive step - (no)
Inventive step - main request, and auxiliary requests 1, 3 to 12, 14
Exclusion from patentability - method for performing mental acts (yes) - auxiliary request 13
Amendment after summons - exceptional circumstances (no)
Amendment after summons - auxiliary requests 6.2, 8.2 and 12.2
Late-filed request - auxiliary requests 2 and 15
Late-filed request - admitted (no)
Purported technical effect not derivable from the application as filed in the sense of G
2/21 (points 3.5 to 3.5.3 of the Reasons)
Inventive step - obvious alternative
Amendment to appeal case
Amendment after summons
January 2024
Sufficiency of disclosure - main request (no)
Amendment after summons - third auxiliary request
Amendment after summons - taken into account (no)
Late-filed first auxiliary request - request could have been filed in first instance proceedings - admitted (no)
Inventive step - second auxiliary request
Inventive step - obvious alternative
Erfinderische Tätigkeit
Zurückverweisung
Nicht-Zulassung eines spät eingereichten prozeduralen Antrags
Änderung nach Ladung
Spät eingereichter Einwand
1. There is no provision stipulating that examples within the meaning of Rule 42(1)(e) EPC should not be in the form of claim-like clauses, i.e. in the form of one or more independent clauses followed by a number of clauses referring to previous clauses, at the end of or in another part of the description. There is no justification for deleting such examples just because they were drafted as claim-like clauses.
They are to be treated like any other part of the description and thus, inter alia, must support the claims (Article 84 EPC). (Reasons 3.4 and 3.5)
2. It is a general and overarching objective, and as such also a "requirement" of the Convention, that authorities, courts and the public interpreting the claims at a later stage should, as far as possible, arrive at the same understanding of the claimed subject-matter as the EPO bodies deciding on the patentability of the same subject-matter. The only tool for achieving this objective is the patent specification as the expression of a unitary legal title. The description, as an integral part of the patent specification, should therefore also serve this overriding objective, i.e. it should provide a common understanding and interpretation of the claims. If the description contains subject-matter which manifestly impedes a common understanding, it is legitimate to insist on its removal under Articles 84 and 94(3) EPC and Rules 42, 48 and 71(1) EPC. (Reasons 5.5.3)
3. The board approves the practice where instead of a direct removal, i.e. the deletion of the subject-matter not covered by the claims, a "removal" by way of an appropriate statement is made, leaving the technical disclosure unaffected. (Reasons 5.7.2)
4. A referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal whose sole purpose is to correct the Guidelines and which is not necessary either for ensuring a uniform case law within the boards or for the board's decision is not admissible. Such a referral could be perceived as an attempt to encroach on the President's powers under Article 10(2)(a) EPC. (Reasons 8.2.2)
Claims - main request
Claims - support in the description (no)
Amendment after summons - taken into account (yes)
Late-filed auxiliary request 0 - request clearly allowable (yes)
Referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal - (no)
December 2023
Decision T 1194/97 established at point 3.3 of the reasons that data was functional if its loss impaired the technical operation of a system in which it was used.
...It is self-evident that if a piece, either technical or non-technical, of any invention is taken out, it would not work as designed. In the Board's view, what T 1194/97 is saying is rather that the loss of functional data would make the system inoperable at the technical level. In contrast, if cognitive data is lost, the system would still work but possibly produce results that would be unintended for non-technical reasons.
(See point 3.8 of the reasons)
Inventive step - delaying the delivery of rain-sensitive parcels until it stops raining (no
Inventive step - not technical)
1) Le mémoire exposant les motifs du recours d'un requérant (opposant) doit comprendre l'ensemble des moyens couvrant toutes les requêtes pendantes devant la division d'opposition, y compris celles qui n'ont pas été considérées dans la décision contestée. Faute de quoi, le réquérant s'expose à ce que des moyens déposés après le mémoire exposant les motifs du recours et visant des requêtes subsidiaires pendantes devant la division d'opposition et déposées en réponse au mémoire de recours par le propriétaire du brevet soit écartés de la procédure (point 3 des motifs).
2) Lorsqu'un propriétaire de brevet modifie une revendication de produit en énonçant que le produit est destiné à une utilisation particulière, alors c'est à lui qu'appartient la charge de la preuve de démontrer que les produits de l'état de la technique cités contre la nouveauté et satisfaisant à toutes les autres caractéristiques de la revendication sont inaptes à l'utilisation en question (point 9 des motifs).
3) Une formulation dite « en cascade » de caractéristiques est susceptible d'entraîner une ambiguïté de la revendication.
Lorsqu'une revendication est définie comme incluant une classe générique de composés présents dans une gamme pondérale et que la revendication est modifiée « en cascade » en indiquant que la classe générique est un composé spécifique, alors la gamme pondérale s'applique à ce composé spécifique, et non plus à la classe générique (point 11 des motifs).
La portée de la revendication ne doit pas être interprétée sur la base d'une prétendue intention du rédacteur de la revendication, mais doit être appréciée sur la base de ses caractéristiques.
L'ambiguïté d'une formulation « en cascade » ne peut pas être utilisée pour interpréter la revendication comme excluant tous les composés de la classe générique autres que ceux mentionnés ou en imposant une limitation pondérale à l'ensemble de la classe générique (point 12 des motifs)(T0999/10 - non suivie).
Modification des moyens invoqués dans le cadre du recours
Modification des moyens invoqués - exercice du pouvoir d'appréciation
Modification des moyens invoqués - nouveau document non admis dans la procédure
Nouveauté - requêtes principale et subsidiaires 1,2,4 et 5
Nouveauté - (non)
Activité inventive - requête subsidiaire 3A
Activité inventive - (non)
Activité inventive - requête subsidiaire 6A
Activité inventive - (oui)
Modifications - requêtes subsisiaires 3 et 6
Modifications - extension de la protection conférée par le brevet délivré (oui)
Modifications - requêtes subsidiaires 3A et 6A
Modifications - extension de la protection conférée par le brevet délivré (non)
For an argument that a claimed method is a straightforward automation of a known manual practice of a laboratory assistant, it should be clear what is the alleged manual practice, it should be convincing that it was indeed an existing practice at the relevant date and that it would have been obvious to consider automating it (see point 20 et seq.
of the reasons).
Inventive step - automation of a known manual practice (no)
Remittal for further prosecution (yes)
The implementation of non-technical requirements on a technical prior art system might require modifications which, at first glance, appear non-obvious, as there is no technical reason for them in view of the prior art alone. However, since according to the principles of "Comvik" non-technical features cannot contribute to inventive step, the non-technical requirements must be seen as a given, and the skilled person implementing them must make the necessary modifications to the prior art.
(See point 17 of the reasons).
Inventive step - (no
Inventive step - all requests)