6.3. Toute autre exigence prévue par le règlement d'exécution
6.3.1 Dispositions générales relatives à la présentation des pièces de la demande (règle 49 CBE)
La règle 49 CBE contient des dispositions générales relatives à la présentation des pièces de la demande. Il est notamment exigé à la règle 49(2) CBE que les pièces de la demande doivent être présentées de manière à permettre leur reproduction tant électronique que directe en un nombre illimité d'exemplaires. La demande faisant l'objet de la décision J 4/09 avait été rejetée par la section de dépôt au motif qu'elle enfreignait cette disposition. La chambre de recours juridique a indiqué qu'elle ne partageait pas l'avis de la section de dépôt. Tout d'abord, les dessins ont été intégrés au contenu du dossier électronique de l'Office européen des brevets et il n'a pu être constaté aucune différence manifeste par rapport à la version déposée.
La chambre de recours juridique a ensuite constaté que la question de savoir quelles étaient les informations susceptibles de pouvoir être déduites exactement des dessins, ne relevait pas de l'examen quant à la forme. C'est bien plus le demandeur qui détermine par le choix et la formulation des pièces de la demande l'étendue de la divulgation. Le contenu informatif des dessins déposés est donc de sa responsabilité. Il ne peut être procédé à une vérification qui aille au-delà des critères prévus aux règles 46 CBE et règles 49, paragraphes 1 CBE à règles 49, paragraphes 9 CBE et règles 49, paragraphes 12 CBE pour l'examen lors du dépôt. En particulier, la production de dessins améliorés ne doit pas donner lieu à une divulgation qui ne figurait pas dans la version initiale, et le demandeur ne doit pas être contraint, par le biais d'une modification des dessins, à renoncer à la seule divulgation qu'il estime possible.
- J 11/20
Résumé
In J 11/20 the applicant appealed a decision of the Receiving Section refusing their application under Art. 90(5) EPC in conjunction with R. 58 EPC. The sole reason for the refusal was that the four amended drawings filed by the applicant to remedy formal deficiencies in the application documents were not in agreement with the application documents as originally filed and, despite the invitation by the Receiving Section, the applicant had not corrected this deficiency in due time.
In the statement of grounds of appeal, the appellant had objected that the Receiving Section had committed a substantial procedural violation by exceeding its competence when issuing the communication concerning the formal requirements of the application documents by addressing substantive matters that belonged to the competence of the examining division. Thus, the first question addressed by the Legal Board concerned the competence of the Receiving Section and, in particular, whether the Receiving Section had acted ultra vires.
The Legal Board recalled that the Receiving Section was responsible for the examination on filing and the examination as to formal requirements of the application (Art. 16 EPC). It was established case law that the responsibilities of the Receiving Section did not involve any technical examination of the application (J 5/12, J 7/97, J 33/89 and J 4/85).
Within this framework, the Legal Board explained that the Receiving Section was competent under R. 58 EPC to identify inconsistencies in the application documents which were immediately apparent from the face of the documents, including whether formal discrepancies were present between amended documents and the documents as originally filed, provided no technical knowledge was required.
In the case in hand, the deficiency noted by the Receiving Section was of a purely formal nature and did not involve any assessment in terms of disclosure. Hence, no procedural violation was committed in this respect.
The Legal Board also assessed whether the Receiving Section should have granted interlocutory revision of the appealed decision. The Legal Board referred to J 18/08 and explained that a deficiency on which a decision under Art. 90(5) EPC is based could be corrected at the appeal stage. Such a case was different from the situation where the non-observance of a time limit automatically led to the application being deemed to be withdrawn, i.e. where the legal consequence automatically ensued when an act required within a specific time limit was not performed.
In the case in hand, the Legal Board observed that, when the appeal was filed, the deficiency had already been remedied, albeit late, with the filing of the correct drawings. Considering that the ground for refusal of the application under Art. 90(5) EPC had been remedied, the Legal Board established that the Receiving Section should have granted interlocutory revision in accordance with Art. 109 EPC.