Source: http://k-slaw.blogspot.com/2013/09/t-198112-possibly-unfair.html
Timestamp: 2018-10-22 20:34:36
Document Index: 201692307

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art 82', 'Art 82', 'Art. 78', 'Art. 113', 'Art. 123', 'Art. 82', 'Art. 123', 'Art. 82', 'Art. 123', 'Art. 78']

K’s Law: T 1981/12 – Possibly Unfair
I'm confused by this decision. The board concludes that R164(2) cannot by itself be the grounds of refusal, since there is no sanction for failing to comply with the invitation of R164(2) [4.7 of the reasons]. They also conclude that R137(5) does not apply because the claimed subject matter was in the originally filed claims (even if it was in some of those claims that were not searched R137(5) refers to the original claims and therefore doesn't apply) [4.3 and 4.4 of the reasons]. They conclude that any refusal must therefore be based on Art 82 - lack of unity [4.8 of the reasons]. But what if there is no lack of unity? E.g. the original claims have claim 1 and then claims 2 and 3. Claim 1 lacks novelty and 2 and 3 therefore lack unity as a result (I think this is simpler but analagous to the situation here). So claims 1 and 2 are searched and R164(2) invites you to limit to that subject matter. But you don't, you limit to a single claim made up of 1+3. Now according to the Board R164(2) cannot be the basis of a refusal and R137(5) does not apply because 1+3 was in the original claims. There is no lack of unity, 1+3 is clearly a single invention, so Art 82 doesn't apply. If it's novel and inventive and clear (which is an unrelated point) then there is no legal grounds on which to refuse it. However, it clearly hasn't been searched and the Board say that shouldn't be allowed [5.3 of the reasons]. In the case, the Board conclude that the main request and first auxiliary request should not be allowed, but they don't give the legal basis for that [12.2 of the reasons]. Is that because there is no legal basis? Are the Board saying that the requests just violate some fundamental principle underlying the EPC and should therefore be refused even though there is no legal basis for doing so? Or have I missed something?
27 September 2013 at 11:54
If R. 164(2) applies but there is no lack of unity, then the situation is that the claims were amended to (in short) an invention not covered by the search. According to the Board, such claims should not be admitted into the procedure. There is then "no admissible request for grant and the application will be refused" (point 4.2). (It is true that 4.2 is about R. 137(5), but the idea is the same. I think the Board does not mention this in 4.7 and 4.8 because the claims on file were objected by the ED for lack of unity.)
I don't agree with the wording "no admissible request for grant". The request for grant is filed together with the application (Art. 78(1)(a)). In my view a claim request is a request for amendment. If it is not admitted, there is no agreed text (because the request implies disagreement of the applicant with the previous text), Art. 113(2).
It is an interesting question how the interpretation that R. 137(5) and R. 164(2) lead to inadmissibility of new claims relates to Art. 123(1), which guarantees one opportunity to amend the application. The Rules cannot deviate from the Articles. It could maybe be argued that Art. 82 implies an exception to Art. 123(1) in the case of amending to an unsearched invention that was present in the non-unitary set of claims that was the subject of the search, but that does not cover the case that the claims are amended to an unsearched invention only present in the description. (Well, maybe it does... Art. 82 refers to "the European patent application", not to "the claims of the European patent application".)
Interpreting R. 137(5) and R. 164(2) as requirements to be met by an application in the sense of A. 78(1) ("and satisfy the requirements laid down in the Implementing Regulations") rather than criteria for admissibility would be a way to get around Art. 123(1).
But I think I agree with the Board that R. 137(5) and R. 164(2) are not requirements to be met by an application. These provisions set forth conditions on the claims in relation to the history of the case: what was claimed earlier, what was searched, etc. Art. 78(1) only concerns the present state of the application, independently of how it got there.
27 September 2013 at 18:47