D. Inventive step

Catchword: 

1. Novelty in the case of purpose-limited product claims pursuant to Article 54(5) EPC relying on a dosage regimen defined by a numerical range, see point 2.6 of the reasons.  2. Limits to the application of the concept of bonus effect, see point 3.4.3 of the reasons.

Catchword:

Since Article 56 EPC and the final stage of the problem‑solution approach both consider what is obvious to a person skilled in the art, an inventive step cannot be denied solely on the finding that the claimed subject-matter is not directly and unambiguously disclosed from the combination of two documents. In other words, when considering the question of whether an invention is obvious starting from a document representing the closest prior art in combination with another document, it is not the mere sum of the teachings of these two documents that has to be considered; the skilled person's common general knowledge and skills must also be taken into account when combining the two documents.

Catchword:

Complementing automatisation with human intervention. Providing means enabling a skilled artisan to actively intervene in an automated process and provide a backup to pre-programmed procedures - Obvious measures - (yes) (Points 2.19 to 2.33)

Catchword:

The board came to the conclusion that a technical effect was achieved by the subject-matter of a claim defining a method of automatically controlling the performance of a recommender system in a communications system, the communications system including a client device associated with a user to which the recommendations were provided, on average, over substantially the whole scope of the claim (reasons, points 9.1 and 9.2, but see also point 7).

Catchword:

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).

Catchword:

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)

Catchword:  see reasons 4.7 for exceptional cases in the sense of points 98 and 128 of G 1/19

Catchword:

The board is not convinced that there is a credible increase in the speed of the mapping of the retrieved data to a particular application type over the whole scope of the claim since a plurality of associations/catalogues are implicitly needed in the method in claim 1 compared to the single catalogue used in the acknowledged prior art, and the claim does not specify any implementation for which a speed can be determined over the whole scope of the claim. In the current case, the results of the acknowledged prior art appears to be quite different from that of the invention. The method of claim 1 attempts to identify applications for a database, whereas the prior art attempts to identify data formats for all kinds of applications, i.e. not limited to applications using databases comprising tables. Therefore a speed comparison with the speed of the mapping achieved by the prior art is not meaningful. One question that arises is whether the method of claim 1 has the potential to cause technical effects. But the mapping and display of the data record in a respective column of the user interface resulting from the claimed method is not specifically adapted for any technical use (see G 1/19, point 94). Since the board does not see any technical effect from the implementation of the claimed method in a computer system derivable over the whole scope of the claim, the claimed subject-matter does not achieve a technical effect over the prior art acknowledged in the application.

Catchword: 

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)

Catchword: 

A neural network defines a class of mathematical functions which, as such, is excluded matter. As for other "nontechnical" matter, it can therefore only be considered for the assessment of inventive step when used to solve a technical problem, e.g. when trained with specific data for a specific technical task.

Catchword:

The undesired phenomena observed in the patent with the use of the prior art compositions would not inevitably manifest themselves upon the practical implementation of the teaching of the prior art. The recognition of the relevance of these phenomena should therefore be considered to form part of the technical contribution described in the patent. A specific reference in the formulation of the objective technical problem to the avoidance of these phenomena risks to unfairly direct development towards the claimed solution, which is not permissible in line with the principles as developed in the established jurisprudence (see reasons section 4.2.3).

Catchwords:

No technical effect of the distinguishing features over the disclosure of document D1 can be derived over the whole scope of claim 1 (see decision G 1/19 of 10 March 2021, sections 82 and 95).

Catchword: 

The mere change, by an operator, of the degree of abstraction of a graphical view ("condensation") of a power grid does not credibly assist a user in performing a technical task by means of a continued and/or guided human-machine interaction process within the meaning of T 336/14 and T 1802/13 and thus cannot bring about a technical effect (see points 3.2 to 3.6 of the Reasons).

Catchword:

As to the application of the problem-solution approach, in particular the determination of the objective technical problem and the choice of the "second document", see points 6.3.2 and 6.3.4 of the Reasons.

Orientierungssatz:

Berücksichtigung einer in nachveröffentlichten Dokumenten gezeigten technischen Wirkung im Lichte der Entscheidung G 2/21 (Punkt 3.3 der Entscheidungsgründe).

Catchword:

Most promising springboard toward the claimed invention too short to allow the skilled person to reach out to cited secondary document and to overcome the considerable gap separating the closest prior art from the claimed subjectmatter (reasons 3.35 to 3.39)

Catchwords:

Inventive step objection based on hindsight: arguments involving a convoluted set of sequential steps conceived starting from the claimed subject-matter and working backwards in attempt to bridge the gap with the prior art (Reasons 1.27)

Catchword:

Die Verbesserung der Nutzerzufriedenheit z. B. bei einer TV-Live-Übertragung ist im Allgemeinen eine nicht-technische, administrative Aufgabe, für die üblicherweise ein TV-Stationsmanager als Fachperson zuständig ist (siehe Gründe 5.6 der Entscheidung).

Catchwords: 

If the claimed non-technical features do not interact with claimed technical features such that they produce a further technical effect, for the assessment of inventive step one may - either include the corresponding aim to be achieved in a non-technical field in the formulation of the problem as part of the framework of the technical problem that is to be solved, - or else take the corresponding business scenario as the starting point for the problem and solution approach (see reasons 3.2.2).

Catchword.

Improved patient compliance to a pharmaceutical formulation cannot be used to establish an overall technical effect if it is the result of a "broken technical chain", namely an alleged chain of technical effects starting with information provided to a patient which is then broken by the patient's mental activities (see points 2.4 and 2.5).

Catchword: 

If non-technical features have both a technical and a non[1]technical effect, the technical effect must be taken into account when assessing inventive step, but the technical effect must be clearly derivable from the application as a whole (Reasons 3.6.4 (1)).

Catchword: 

While a feature might, in certain contexts, be seen as technical, the technical effect of a feature must be assessed as a whole and in the context of the claimed invention (reasons 2.7.4).

Catchword:

According to the Comvik approach the non-technical features of a claim may be incorporated into a goal to be achieved in a non-technical field. Subsequently, the approach invokes what might be described as the legal fiction that this goal, including the claimed non-technical features, would be presented to the skilled person, who would be charged with the task of technically implementing a solution which would achieve the stated goal. The question whether the skilled person would "arrive" at the non-technical features does not therefore arise, as these features have been made known to the skilled person, as part of the goal to be achieved. The relevant question for the assessment of inventive step is whether it would be obvious for the skilled person to implement a technical solution corresponding to the claimed subject-matter (Reasons, point 3.12).

Catchword:

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)

Catchword:

The business person sets the framework of the problem to be solved by their business model (insurance conditions) and thus reduces - by setting specific boundary conditions - the degrees of freedom of the skilled computer specialist. The technically skilled person, who has to solve the objective technical problem of implementation, therefore has no latitude in selecting the corresponding (physical) parameters (reasons 3.6.10).

Catchword:

In case T 625/11, the board concluded that the determination, as a limit value, of the value of a first operating parameter conferred a technical character to the claim which went beyond the mere interaction between the numerical simulation algorithm and the computer system. The nature of the parameter thus identified was, in fact, "intimately linked to" the operation of a nuclear reactor, independently of whether the parameter was actually used in a nuclear reactor (T 625/11, Reasons 8.4). The board is of the opinion that, in the case at hand, no technical effect is achieved by the method's functionality as the method merely produces a test rod pattern (i.e. a fuel bundle configuration) design and data "indicative of limits that were violated by the proposed test rod pattern design during the simulation". Contrary to case T 625/11, no parameter is identified that is "intimately linked to" the operation of a nuclear reactor. A rod pattern design appears to have non-technical uses such as for study purposes. These are "relevant uses other than the use with a technical device", and therefore a technical effect is not achieved over substantially the whole scope of the claimed invention (G 1/19, points 94 and 95). The data "indicative of limits that were violated by the proposed test rod pattern design during the simulation" do even not, or at least do not entirely, reflect the physical behaviour of a real system underlying the simulation (see G 1/19, point 128). The board notes that, due to the breadth of the wording of claim 1 of the main request, the obtained rod pattern design might violate any number of limits by an almost unlimited amount. Hence, this is not an "exceptional case" in which calculated effects can be considered implied technical effects (see decision G 1/19, points 94, 95 and 128).

Catchword:

The appellant argued that the claimed features relating to the abstract business concept neither could have been provided by the business person to the technical expert for programming, nor would the technical expert have corresponding knowledge starting from a networked standard computer system. The appellant thereby alleged that there was to be considered an imaginary third person who came up with the concept of the invention to be implemented on a computer system. The Board notes that when assessing inventive step in the field of computer implemented business related inventions following the COMVIK approach and the corresponding case law, there is no room for such a third expert. When analysing the features of a claim and answering the question of whether they provide a technical contribution, each such feature has to be judged to be either a contribution of the technical expert or of the non‑technical business person in order to conclude whether there is an inventive technical contribution.

Catchword:

Während eine Fachperson im Allgemeinen Dokumente nicht kombinieren würde, wenn dies zu einem Verzicht auf eine wesentliche Funktion der Erfindung im nächstliegenden Stand der Technik führen würde, gilt dies in der Regel nicht für Kombinationen, bei denen ein wesentliches Merkmal durch ein dieselbe Funktion erfüllendes alternatives Merkmal ersetzt wird (Punkte 1.3.2 und 1.3.3 der Gründe).

Catchword:

An encoding or compression algorithm contributes to the technical character of the claimed compression method if it is used for the purpose of reducing the amount of data to be stored or transmitted (reasons 7).

Catchword:

Since the problem and solution approach defines the problem based on the effect of the differences from the closest prior art, and the effect is derived primarily from the disclosure of the invention, the effect documented in the present documents alone is taken as the basis for the problem formulation. The Board concluded that any further, undocumented effects would be speculative and should not be additionally included in the problem formulation (reasons 5.3.2)

Catchword: 

If the only feature that distinguishes a claim from the closest prior art is a range of an unusual parameter and it is concluded that it would be obvious for the skilled person to solve the underlying technical problem in ways that can be presumed to inherently lead to values within or close to the claimed range, it is the proprietor who should bear the burden of proof to demonstrate that implementing such solutions would not lead to the claimed parametrical range.

Catchword: 

- Binding effect of a referring decision (see Reasons, points 9 to 9.4.5) - Interpretation of order no. 2 of G 2/21 (see Reasons, points 10 to 11.14, in particular points 11.10 and 11.14) - Submissions based on earlier decisions of the boards of appeal - admittance into the appeal proceedings (see Reasons, points 32 to 32.4, in particular point 32.3)

Catchword:

A disclosure within a prior art document can only be considered to represent a suitable starting point for assessing inventive step if the skilled person would have realistically started from it. An important consideration in this assessment generally is whether this disclosure aims at the same or a similar purpose or effect as that underlying the patent in question (see in particular 5.3 to 5.6 of the Reasons).

Catchword: 
If a claim is unduly broadened with respect to the scope of the examples used to illustrate a technical effect, particularly when this broadening concerns the feature/s allegedly providing that effect, the burden of proof might shift back to the proprietor to prove that the effect observed in the examples would also be obtained throughout the entire scope of the claims. If no evidence is provided in this respect, a conclusion may have to be drawn on the basis of plausibility arguments (reasons 2.2.5-2.2.7).

Catchword:

However, the question is whether the mere idea of mapping this acceleration data to gait category is technical, involving any technical considerations or having any overall technical effect. This question arises in many inventions that involve mappings and algorithms. In T 1798/13 (Forecasting the value of a structured financial product/SWISS REINSURANCE COMPANY LTD), points 2.7 to 2.9, the present Board essentially held that it was not enough that an algorithm makes use of a technical quantity in the form of a measured physical parameter (weather data). What matters is whether the algorithm reflects any additional technical considerations about the parameter, such as its measurement. In that case there were none. This was contrasted with T 2079/10 (Steuerung von zellulär aufgebauten Alarmsystemen/ SWISSRE) where the invention was seen to lie in the improvement of the measurement technique itself, which involved technical considerations about the sensors and their positions. Such a situation is conceivable in the present case, if the algorithm were to somehow enhance the input data using considerations of e.g. the placement of the sensors. However, the claim only specifies that the data "includes a time series of acceleration vectors" and that this data is "analyzed". There are no further details that could constitute technical considerations about the data or the sensors. (See points 2.11 to 2.13 of the reasons)

Catchwords: 

A similarity [of the claimed subject-matter] to a business or administrative solution is not a sufficient reason for denyinCatchwords:  A similarity [of the claimed subject-matter] to a business or administrative solution is not a sufficient reason for denying a technical contribution of a claim feature applied in a technical context and involving technical considerations. Put another way, technical considerations in the technical context cannot be negated merely on the basis of a non-technical analogy. ... The analogy to a post office, essentially invoked by the contested decision, is used in technical literature in order to describe functionality of the transport layer (layer 4) of the OSI model. However, in the Board's view, it would not be sound to assert, only based on this analogy, that communication protocols implementing this layer's functionality lack technical character. (See points 3.2.7 and 3.2.8 of the reasons).

Catchword:

In the Board's judgement it is part of the non-technical requirement specification to keep keys (be it analog or electronic keys) away from people one does not trust. This does not require technical considerations of a technically skilled person. The Board does not consider this to be a technical difference, but to be an administrative consideration within the sphere of a business person when contemplating a secure tender process. It is not regarded as a technical innovation, but a natural choice for the bidders to use individual keys, keep the keys back as long as possible and furnish them as late as possible. And even if this was considered technical, it would, in the Board's view, be obvious to do so. Furthermore, the Board considers that implementing a functionality in the networked e-tender system corresponding to D1 would be, at the claimed level of generality, obvious in view of the above business related requirement specification. The Board notes that the implementation is claimed in functional terms and neither the claim nor the application as a whole provide details on how encryption/decryption is achieved on a technical level. The application apparently relies in this respect on the skilled person's common general knowledge. The Board notes in this regard that if providing necessary software and data structures were beyond the skilled person's skills, the invention would not be sufficiently disclosed (Article 83 EPC). Even if the appellant is correct that using different keys for different bidders is a difference over D1, this would in the Board's view imply - in the light of bidders creating their own individual keys for unlocking/decrypting being obvious - that the keys of different bidders are different, too. Therefore creating individual keys/pass-phrases would inherently require the use of multiple keys for implementation. (See points 4.2 to 4.4 of the reasons)

Catchword:

Claim not allowing a distinction between the ingredients which prevent obesity and those which do not prevent or can even induce it. Identification of the protein hydrolysate as an active ingredient for preventing obesity not distinguishing the claimed subject-matter from the disclosure of the prior art. See reasons, points 1.4 to 1.8.

Catchword: 
The appellant's wish for the Board to define criteria that the examining division should use to prove that a feature is not technical is tantamount to defining the term technical, which the Boards have consistently declined to do. However, as stated in e.g. T 2314/16 - Distributing rewards/RAKUTEN at points 2.6 to 2.8, over the years the case law has provided guidance on the issue of technicality. Recently, the Board has tended to use the framework for discussion given in the CardinalCommerce decision (T 1463/11 - Universal merchant platform/CardinalCommerce) to help classify whether borderline features of a claim are on the technical or the non-technical side. It is thus clear that some discussion can and ought to take place. However, rather like objections against added subject-matter, one is essentially trying to prove a negative which tends to be a rather short exercise. On the other hand, the appellant is trying to prove a positive which involves more argument. Thus an objection from the division should probably start with a prima facie assertion that the feature in question is non-technical, perhaps because it is in one of the exclusions listed in Article 52(2) EPC, or a related or analogous field. If this is uncontested then this would be enough. However the Board considers that it is then up to the appellant to provide arguments why there is a technical effect or that some technical considerations are involved. The division should consider these arguments and give reasons why they are not convincing. As mentioned above, the Board is satisfied that this happened in the present case. One final piece of advice for examining divisions would be where possible to search for and start from a document that already discloses some of the alleged non-technical features, thus avoiding the discussion for these features (see for example, T 756/06 - Displaying a schedule/FUJITSU, point 5 or T 368/05 - Integrated account/CITIBANK, point 8). (See points 3.3 to 3.5 of the reasons)

Catchword:

Application of decision G 1/19 to
- simulation methods (Reasons, point 2)
- design methods (Reasons, point 4)
- measurement methods (Reasons, point 7)

Headnote: 

I. Evidence submitted by a patent applicant or proprietor to prove a technical effect relied upon for acknowledgement of inventive step of the claimed subject-matter may not be disregarded solely on the ground that such evidence, on which the effect rests, had not been public before the filing date of the patent in suit and was filed after that date.  II. A patent applicant or proprietor may rely upon a technical effect for inventive step if the skilled person, having the common general knowledge in mind, and based on the application as originally filed, would derive said effect as being encompassed by the technical teaching and embodied by the same originally disclosed invention.

Abstract

In T 1594/20 bezweifelte die Kammer, dass überhaupt eine Simulation eines technischen Gegenstands vorlag. Eine mathematisch rechnerische Optimierung bewirke nicht zwangsläufig auch eine Simulation des zugrunde liegenden physikalischen Vorgangs (hier Warentransport), sondern es seien vom hier vorliegenden Anspruchsgegenstand auch rein deterministische mathematische Optimierungen umfasst. Die optimierte Aufteilung eines Kommissionierauftrags nach rein kaufmännischen Kostenbetrachtungen (z.B. break-even-point) sei ebenso umfasst wie mathematische Optimierungsalgorithmen analog zum bekannten travelling-salesman-problem. Dabei werden kognitive geschäftsbezogene Daten verarbeitet und es liegen keine technischen Überlegungen zugrunde, die zu einer erfinderischen Tätigkeit nach Art. 56 EPÜ beitragen könnten.

Die Beschwerdeführerin argumentierte, dass mit dem beanspruchten Gegenstand eine Reduktion der Anzahl von Fahrten erreicht werde und damit eine Energieeinsparung verbunden sei. Die Kammer war davon nicht überzeugt. Eine geltend gemachte Energieeinsparung sei rein spekulativ und könne nicht ohne weiteres zur Annahme eines technischen Effekts führen. Dazu wäre erforderlich, dass ein solcher Effekt mit technischen Mitteln erreicht werde. Beim beanspruchten Gegenstand wäre eine Energieeinsparung (sofern tatsächlich erzielt) aber Folge einer rein organisatorischen oder algorithmischen Optimierung, die im Wesentlichen auf einer gedanklichen Tätigkeit basiere. Daraus könne kein technischer Effekt zur Berücksichtigung einer erfinderischen Tätigkeit abgeleitet werden. Die Kammer stimmte daher der angefochtenen Entscheidung zu, dass die objektive technische Aufgabe darin bestand, das mathematische Verfahren zur Warenkommissionierung, welches vom Geschäftsmann der Logistik als Spezifikation vorgegeben wurde, auf einem Computersystem zu implementieren. Bei der Implementierung sah die Kammer keinen technischen Effekt, welcher über die reine Automatisierung hinausging.

Abstract

Dans l'affaire T 1733/21, les revendications 1 et 6 de la requête dont la division d'opposition avait jugé qu'elle satisfaisait aux exigences de la CBE peuvent être résumées comme suit : (1) Procédé d'impression de substrat et de personnalisation dudit substrat par dorure, (6) Système d'impression de substrat et de personnalisation du dit substrat par dorure comprenant un groupe d'impression du substrat par jet d'encre adapté à la mise en relief de zones au moyen d'encre et/ou de vernis.

Concernant l'activité inventive, la requérante (opposante) a présenté des objections en partant des documents D3, D2 et D4. La division d'opposition a conclu qu'aucun des documents D2 et D3 ne pouvaient constituer un point de départ valable, car ils ne concernaient pas des procédés ou systèmes d'impression et de personnalisation de substrat par dorure sélective et ne visaient donc pas à obtenir le même effet que l'invention. La chambre ne partage pas ce raisonnement.

La chambre énonce que de manière générale, pour être prometteur, le point de départ doit se situer dans le même domaine technique que l'invention ou dans un domaine voisin. S'il est vrai qu'un état de la technique qui vise le même effet technique que l'invention semble a priori prometteur, il ne s'agit pas d'une condition sine qua non pour sa prise en compte. S'il en était autrement, des éléments de l'état de la technique qui sont silencieux quant à l'effet visé (tels que, par exemple, la plupart des usages antérieurs) ne sauraient jamais constituer un point de départ valable, ce qui est contraire à la pratique établie de l'OEB (cf. T 1742/12).

La chambre énonce que c'est à l'opposante de démontrer que l'invention n'est pas inventive ; si son choix du point de départ pour mener cette démonstration n'est pas aberrant, il convient d'en tenir compte. Or, le seul fait que la technologie utilisée dans les documents D2 et D3 était basée sur le gaufrage ne les disqualifiait pas d'office comme points de départ. La chambre a donc jugé que la division d'opposition n'aurait pas dû écarter d'office D2 et D3 comme points de départ.

Partant du document D3, la chambre a estimé que bien que D3, même en combinaison avec D9, pourrait conduire à l'invention, cela n'était pas démontré de manière évidente par les connaissances générales de l'homme du métier. Le procédé de D3 est assez différent; l'étape d'impression décrite y a une fonction différente de celle revendiquée. Par conséquent, D3, même en combinaison avec D9, ne conduisait pas à l'objet des revendications 1 ou 6.

Partant du document D2, la chambre a estimé que la requérante n'a pas démontré de façon convaincante que l'homme du métier aurait été conduit à l'invention par le document D2 seul ou en combinaison avec le document D4. L'affirmation que l'homme du métier aurait été conduit à l'invention par la combinaison des documents D2 et D4 n'est pas plausible, car il s'agit de technologies différentes (mise en relief par impression vs. gaufrage). Aux yeux de la chambre, l'homme du métier n'avait pas de raison objective d'isoler l'enseignement concernant l'impression à jet d'encre dans le document D4 et de l'incorporer dans la station d'encollage du dispositif décrit dans le document D2. Le raisonnement de la requérante reposait sur une analyse a posteriori. Par conséquent, D2, même en combinaison avec D4, n'aurait pas conduit l'homme du métier à l'objet des revendications 1 ou 6.

La chambre n'a pas non plus été convaincue par les lignes d'attaque partant du document D4.

En conclusion la requérante n'a pas convaincu la chambre que l'objet de la revendication 1 n'impliquait pas d'activité inventive. Les parties étaient d'accord que la conclusion relative à l'activité inventive du procédé selon la revendication 1 s'appliquait également au dispositif correspondant selon la revendication 6. Comme les objections par la requérante contre le maintien du brevet n'étaient pas fondées, la chambre a rejeté le recours.

Abstract

In T 629/22, concerning the inventive step of the subject-matter claimed in auxiliary request 1a-p-s, the board identified D12 as the closest prior art. The claimed subject-matter of a cheese analogue differed from the teaching of D12 at least on account of the type and amount of starch: 10 to 24 wt.% of non-modified root or tuber starch or of a waxy root or tuber starch instead of 7 wt.% modified starch.

The board was satisfied that the tests in the patent and in D27 and D29 made it credible that cheese analogues prepared using non-modified tuber and root starch had melt-stretch characteristics. Appellant 1 noted however that example 28 of D38 showed that no stretchable cheese analogue could be obtained using 10 wt.% waxy potato starch, 0.5 wt.% potato protein and 35 wt.% sunflower oil. This demonstrated that the claims were overly broad and that melt-stretch characteristics could not be achieved across the entire scope claimed.

The board did not agree with these conclusions. The amounts of potato protein (0.5 wt.%) and starch (10 wt.%) used in example 28 of D38 were the lowest foreseen in the patent whereas the amount of fat (35 wt.%) was the highest. This meant that the allegedly non-working embodiment in example 28 related to a rather peculiar case.

The patent and the experimental reports D27 and D55 described cheese analogues comprising different amounts of waxy starch, potato protein and fat. The amount of these ingredients was varied substantially across the entire scope claimed: that of the potato proteins from 0.5 to 5 wt.%, that of the starch from 10 to 24 wt.% and that of oil from 10 to 35 wt.%. All these cheese analogues exhibited melt-stretch characteristics. This made it credible that the claimed effect could be obtained substantially across the entire scope claimed.

The board noted the findings of the Enlarged Board in G 1/03 (OJ 2004, 413), point 2.5.2 of the Reasons, that where "…there is a large number of conceivable alternatives and the specification contains sufficient information on the relevant criteria for finding appropriate alternatives over the claimed range with reasonable effort […] the inclusion of non-working embodiments is of no harm."

The board found that in the case in hand the patent indeed described a large number of conceivable alternatives and sufficient information for finding appropriate alternatives over the claimed range, with reasonable effort. If a skilled person failed to prepare a stretchable cheese analogue using the amounts of ingredients in example 28 of D38, they would: realise that the conditions used are extreme because the amounts of the ingredients are at the edge of each of the ranges foreseen in the patent; find in the patent, and in particular in the examples, the teaching that compositions having the desired properties could be obtained by increasing the amount of potato protein and/or decreasing the amount of the oil. The tests in the patent and in D27 and D55 made it credible that if a skilled person followed the teaching in the patent, they would obtain a cheese analogue having the relevant stretch properties.

The board concluded the claimed effect could be obtained substantially across the entire scope claimed. Therefore, the presence of a single non-working embodiment was of no harm.

Abstract

In T 672/21 the appellant (opponent 2) had provided submissions on obviousness based on the assumption that any improved property was absent, so that the objective technical problem was the mere provision of a further polymorph. It relied in this respect on decision T 777/08.

The board, however, defined the objective technical problem in a more ambitious way. For this reason alone, the board held the appellant's submission on obviousness had to fail. The objective technical problem as defined by the board was the provision of a crystalline form of selexipag with a balance of beneficial properties, namely an intermediate stability and at the same time improved industrial processability and improved purity in terms of reduced amounts of residual solvents and residual impurities.

The board noted that according to T 777/08 "in the absence of any technical prejudice and in the absence of any unexpected property, the mere provision of a crystalline form of a known pharmaceutically active compound cannot be regarded as involving an inventive step" (headnote 1) and "the arbitrary selection of a specific polymorph from a group of equally suitable candidates cannot be viewed as involving an inventive step" (headnote 2). However, in the present case there was no absence of unexpected properties and the selection was not arbitrary, since the selected Form I had a balance of beneficial properties in terms of stability, industrial processability and purity in comparison with Form II and Form III. There was nothing in the prior art which pointed to the fact that the claimed Form I would have this balance of beneficial properties and they were thus not expected. The present case thus differed from the situation at issue in decision T 777/08.

The board also distinguished T 41/17, relied upon by the appellant for its further argument that the alleged stability of Form I was not a surprising technical effect because the skilled person always looked for the most thermodynamically stable polymorph in order to avoid the problem of interconversion within the dosage form. In T 41/17 it was concluded that the skilled person would have performed screening of the different polymorphs disclosed in the closest prior art, which could exist in order to isolate and identify the most thermodynamically stable form thereof. By doing so, the skilled person would have arrived at the claimed polymorph, which was the most thermodynamically stable form and which, for this reason, was expected not to convert to other forms under mechanical stress. However, unlike in T 41/17, in the present case the stability was not the only property, but rather part of a balance of beneficial properties. Hence, even if the stability of Form I (which is at an intermediate level) had been expected, the same would not apply to the balance of various beneficial properties.

The board also noted that the mere fact that the skilled person would have carried out routine screening for polymorphs as such did not render the claimed Form I obvious. As set out in T 1684/16, the fact that the skilled person was taught in the prior art to investigate polymorphs in order to isolate the crystalline form having the most desirable properties was in itself not necessarily sufficient to consider a specific polymorphic form having a certain desired property or, as in the present case, balance of properties obvious.

Thus the subject-matter of claim 1 of the main request, and by the same token of claims 2 to 13, which included the subject-matter of claim 1, involved an inventive step in view of D10 as the closest prior art.

Abstract

In T 1994/22 the appeal lay from the opposition division's decision to reject the oppositions filed against the European patent. Claim 1 of the main request related to Form II of selexipag, an agonist of the prostaglandin receptor PGI2. The appellant (opponent) objected to the inventive step of the subject-matter of claim 1 of the main request in view of D10 as the closest prior art. The distinguishing feature of claim 1 of the main request in view of example 84 of D10 was the crystalline form, namely Form II of selexipag.

In view of the available experimental results, the board concluded that Form II exhibited the best stability but only intermediate industrial processability, intermediate residual solvent content and an intermediate amount of residual impurities. Contrary to the situation in T 672/21 there was no balance of beneficial properties for Form II according to the main request. The objective technical problem could therefore only be considered that of providing a crystalline form of selexipag which is the best for one property, but only intermediate for all other tested properties.

The respondent submitted that, in line with T 1684/16, there was no reasonable expectation based on the prior art that a suggested investigation in terms of polymorph screening would be successful in finding a form of selexipag having a balance of beneficial properties in terms of stability, industrial processability, solvent content and purity.

The board disagreed. Based on T 1684/16 and in line with T 777/08, an inventive step can be acknowledged if the claimed polymorph has an unexpected property meaning that its selection is non-arbitrary. In the present case, the board saw nothing unexpected in finding a polymorph that was optimum for one property but only intermediate for several other properties. If this were unexpected and thus gave rise to an inventive step being acknowledged, an applicant or proprietor having identified a new polymorph would simply need to carry out tests for long enough to find one single property for which the identified polymorph performed best. This might result in a situation in which almost any polymorph in the world becomes inventive, which would render Art. 56 EPC meaningless.

Therefore, the selection of Form II is an arbitrary selection from the host of alternatives covered by the closest prior art. Such an arbitrary selection without any unexpected balance of properties being produced cannot contribute to inventive step. The subject-matter of claim 1 of the main request therefore does not involve an inventive step in view of D10 as the closest prior art.

In T 1994/22 the respondent (patent proprietor) inter alia had relied on post-published data D32 and submitted that Form II (according to claim 1 of the main request) as claimed had an improved photostability over Form III (comparative).

The respondent relied on the statements made in T 116/18 as regards G 2/21 and submitted that referring to the provision of a novel crystal of compound A (selexipag) and to a pharmaceutical product of "high quality for which constant effect can always be shown and a form which is handled easily industrially", the skilled person would have understood that the effect of improved photostability was implied by or at least related to the technical problem initially suggested in the originally filed application. Therefore, requirement (i) [in T 116/18], as encompassed by the technical teaching, was met. Furthermore, the respondent claimed the skilled person would not have had any legitimate reason to doubt that the improved photostability could be achieved with the claimed polymorphic form of selexipag. Therefore, requirement (ii) [in T 116/18], as embodied by the same originally disclosed invention, was also met in the present case.

In line with T 116/18, the board in the present case acknowledged that the mere fact that photostability or improved photostability was not contained in terms of a positive verbal statement in the application as filed and that the application as filed did not contain any data as regards photostability, as such, did not imply that the effect of improved photostability could not be relied on in terms of G 2/21 or T 116/18.

However, the board did not consider such a sweeping statement regarding "high quality" and "easy industrial handleability", which covers a plethora of potential advantageous properties, to encompass photostability, let alone improved photostability. If such a sweeping statement were sufficient, a reference to high quality would be sufficient to invoke whatever technical effect as being encompassed by an application as filed in the sense of G 2/21. This would essentially render the first criterion of order no. 2 of G 2/21 meaningless. In the present case, the application as filed was in fact directed to particle size, residual solvent content and amount of impurities, properties which are entirely unrelated to photostability. Therefore, based on these properties, having the common general knowledge in mind, the skilled person would by no means have recognised that (improved) photostability was relevant to the claimed subject-matter. Going from these specific properties to the effect of photostability would also clearly change the nature of the invention, contrary to what is required by T 116/18. Hence, the board found the effect of photostability was not encompassed by the teaching of the application as filed.

Furthermore, even if it were wrongly concluded in the respondent's favour that the technical teaching of the application as filed were to encompass photostability in the sense of T 116/18, it would not do so "together with the claimed subject-matter", as required by this decision.

The respondent submitted during the oral proceedings that the present case was also in line with T 1989/19 and that it was not a requirement that the application as filed disclosed improved photostability. In that case, the board held that once the criterion of the derivability of a technical effect in the sense of G 2/21 was fulfilled, this applied equally to the improvement in this effect. The board agreed with the view expressed in T 1989/19; however in the present case, photostability was not encompassed and thus not derivable from the teaching of the application as filed in the sense of G 2/21. Furthermore, unlike in T 1989/19, the application as filed in the present case referred to three polymorphic forms in equal terms, and the present case was not one in which the purported improvement was asserted to be present for the subject-matter of the application as filed over the subject-matter disclosed in the prior art.

It followed that improved photostability of Form II as demonstrated in D32 could not be taken into account in the assessment of the technical effects achieved by the distinguishing feature.