Patent AU-2013206136-B2 (AU)
Title: Electromagnetic connector for electronic device
Inventor: DIFONZO JOHN C
IPC: H01R13/62
Filed: 2013-04-08
Granted: 2016-02-11
Abstract: Europlisches turopean -atent UTTICe Patentamnt 80298 MUNICH European GERMANY Patent Office office europien DJ ) des brevets Questions about this communication ? Contact Customer Services at www.epo.org/contact EPO - Munich Lang,Johannes 82 Bardehle Pagenberg Partnerschaft mbB Patentanwslte, RechtsanwAlte 0 4. Jan. 2016 Prinzregentenplatz 7 81675 Mnchen Reference Application NoJPater Vo. Al 14811 WOEPT1&7 09159211.3- 1803/2096720 Applicant/Proprietor EPA/EPO/OEB Formblatt/Form/Formulaire: 2_33_ Empfangsbescheinigung Ober den Zugang des vorstehend bezeichneten Schriftstucks Acknowledgement of receipt of the document specified above Recepisse du document specific ci-dessus Unter Bezugnahme auf die Mitteilung im ABI EPA 7/2010, 377 wird gebeten, die Empfangsbescheinigung mit Empfangsdatum und Unterschrift zu versehen und umgehend an das EPA zuruckzusenden: With reference to the Notice in OJ EPO 7/2010, 377, you are requested to date and sign the acknowledgement of receipt and return it to the EPO immediately: Conformement au communique paru au JO OEB 7/2010, 377, vous etes prie d'indiquer sur le recepisse la date de reception du document, de signer le recepiss6 et de le renvoyer sans delai & I' OEB: " Ober die Online-Dienste des EPA (als Anlage zu EPA Form 1038) / through EPO Online Services (as annex to EPO Form 1038) / par les services en ligne de I'OEB (en tant que piece jointe au formulaire OEB 1038), " per Fax / by fax / par telefax (+49 (0) 89 2399-4465 or +31 (0) 70 340-3016) * oder per Post / or by post / ou par courrier. h-Icksende-Adresse"/ Netur address / Adrese "de'retour -pa- - .do/(Umschlag / envelope / enveloppe ISO C4 / DL/ C6/C5 / C6) Empfai g / Rec~ived on / Reg ": AD Abt - 2 4. Dez. 2015 Untershrift-/-Sigrnatre--- N3HONwAI 86ZO8 Frist 3 mweiueied seSiedojn3 c6 WV3 C) Empfangsb echtigter/authorised recipient/ le destina re ou la personne dO nt mandatee inolai ep essaipv sseaipp uniau / essajpv-epuesqjonH w Datum Blatt Anmelde-Nr: Date 14.12.2015 Sheet 1 Application No: 09 159 211.3 Date Feuille Demande n': 1 The chairman declares the oral proceedings opened before the opposition division at 09:30. 2 Mr Lang and Mr Kaufmann Tobias represent the proprietor. They are accompanied by Mr. Rick von Wohld, employee of the proprietor, who is not going to intervene. 3 Mr Markus Lorenz, professional representative, and Mrs Nicola Warneke, authorised employee of the opponent, represent the opponent, and are accompanied by Mr Mathias Lorenz, employee of the representative, who will speak under their responsibility. 4 The language of the proceedings is English. Interpretation from German into the language of the proceedings is provided. 5 The chairman informs the parties that the opposition is admissible and notes that there is no objection as to the admissibility of the opposition. 6 The chairman summarizes the facts of the case so far and invites the parties to confirm their requests. 7 The Opponent requests the revocation of the patent in full on the grounds of Articles 100(a) for lack of novelty and for lack of inventive step, of 1 00(b) because of insufficient disclosure and of 1 00(c) EPC because the subject matter of the patent extends beyond the content of the application as filed (Art.123(2) EPC) and the parent application as filed (Art.76(1) EPC). 8 The Proprietor requests the maintenance of the patent as amended per main request and auxiliary, requests to maintain the patent in amended form according to one of the first to twelfth auxiliary requests in this respective order as filed with letter of 11.09.2015. 9 The Chairman explains that the main request is going to be discussed. 10 The chairman informs the parties that the ground of 100(c) EPC will be first discussed. Five points have been raised by the opponent which relate to amended claim 1: 10.1 - Feature b) where a "plurality of contacts" will be discussed 10.2 - Features c) and d) with respect to the definition of the electrical paths and their correspondence with the contacts 10.3 - Features f) and g) where the use of the general term "connector" as opposed to specific "plug and receptacle" has to be discussed 10.4 - Features f) and g) where the generalisation to a "plurality of magnets" has to be discussed EPO Form 2906 01.91TRI Datum Blatt Anmelde-Nr: Date 14.12.2015 Sheet 2 Application No: 0 9 15 9 2 11 . 3 Date Feuille Demande n': 10.5 - The removal of the backplate present in the embodiments of figures 11 A and 11 B is also contested by the opponent in relation with Art.76(1) EPC. 11 Firstly, in relation with feature b) of amended claim 1, the generalisation to a plurality of contacts is discussed. 11.1 The opponent states that the parent application relates to a connector with an electromagnet. Figures 11 and 12 do not teach the skilled person to use magnets but to build a compact connection having two orientations. Furthermore, the parent application only deals with plug and socket and it is an unduly extension of subject matter to now claim a first and second connectors. Now claim 1 is also covering for instance well known adaptors. From the whole parent application, it is clear that the attraction plate can only be in the receptacle. 11.2 The chairman indicates that this line of argumentation is understood but does not relate to feature b). 11.3 In relation with feature b) and the use of the term "plurality of contacts", the opponent argues that Figs.1 1 and 12 feature only three contacts. 11.4 The proprietor argues that [0007] of the parent application stipulates that there are a plurality of contacts. In Fig.4-7 there are four contacts disclosed. In Fig. 8-10, three contacts are disclosed, in [0042], five contacts are considered in an alternative embodiment. Throughout the application, it is therefore a "plurality of contacts" that is disclosed as also mentioned in [0049] relating to the embodiment of Fig.1 1 but also in Fig.12 in view of [0053] stating that the connector is "substantially similar". 11.5 According to the opponent, the contacts of this embodiment in the parent application are arranged symmetrically with a central contact: this idea is not in claim 1 anymore. 11.6 The proprietor answer that the symmetry is not in contradiction with the plurality of the contacts. 11.7 The proceedings is interrupted from 10:05 till 10:20. 11.8 The chairman declared that the opposition division concludes that the plurality of contacts is disclosed in the parent application and that feature b) does not represent an extension of subject-matter. 12 Then, in relation with features c) and d) of amended claim 1, the generalisation with the definition of the electrical paths and their correspondence with the contacts is discussed. EPO Form 2906 01.91TRI Datum Blatt Anmelde-Nr: Date 14.12.2015 Sheet 3 Application No: 0 9 15 9 2 11 . 3 Date Feuille Demande n': 12.1 The opponent argues that there is in Figs. 11 and 12 a first path defined by the central contact and a second electrical path defined by the two other contacts. Due to the symmetry of the connection, these two outer contacts belong to the same path. The present claim is therefore in contradiction with the original disclosure because in the amended claim the number of contacts and paths is the same. Furthermore, the symbol "+" and "-" of Figs.1 1 and 12 were translated as "power path" in the claim which is an unfair generalisation. 12.2 The proprietor argues that according to [0049], these are only "examples" and there are not necessarily two contacts for one path. 12.3 The proceedings is interrupted from 10:35 till 10:45. 12.4 The first examiner asks the proprietor where from in the parent application there is an indication that there could be more than one signal path and a plurality of signal paths. 12.5 The proprietor indicates that in the parent application, there are several occurrences of the word "signals" (see [0059] and [0081]). In [0081], it is indicated that different types of connection having a plurality of signal paths can be used. 12.6 The opponent argues that a plurality of signals can be conveyed by a single signal path. 12.7 The proceedings is interrupted from 11:05 till 11:25 12.8 The chairman declared that in view of the arguments submitted by the parties during the oral proceedings, the plurality of signal paths would be considered as an extension of the subject matter disclosed in the parent application. The plurality of paths is not excluded from the parent application but the plurality of paths was not directly and unambiguously disclosed in the parent application. The chairman gives the proprietor the opportunity to comment. 12.9 The proprietor argues that in [0037], additional contacts are foreseen for passing electrical signals. A plurality of signal contacts implies a plurality of signal paths. 12.10 The proceedings is interrupted from 11:40 till 11:45 upon request by the opponent. 12.11 The opponent indicates that in [0037], there is no indication of a plurality of signal paths but only a plurality of contacts. But due to the symmetry, two contacts will only build a single signal path. EPO Form 2906 01.91TRI Datum Blatt Anmelde-Nr: Date 14.12.2015 Sheet 4 Application No: 09 159 211.3 Date Feuille Demande n': 12.12 The proceedings is interrupted from 11:50 till 12:00 12.13 The chairman declares that the opposition division is of the opinion that there is no extension of subject-matter in respect of the parent application with respect to the use of plurality of signal paths in view of paragraphs [0037] where the idea of a plurality of signal paths is suggested and [0081] where the connections are known standards having a plurality of signal paths. 13 Then, in relation with features f) and g) of amended claim 1, the generalisation by the use of first and second connectors instead of plug and socket is discussed. 13.1 The opponent argues that it is a teaching of the application that it is a problem to have the magnet in the receptacle. 13.2 The proprietor an