Source: http://dp-patentlaw.blogspot.com/2014/10/t-177909-escape-from-inescapable-trap.html
Timestamp: 2017-12-13 07:16:40
Document Index: 767889833

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 123', 'Art. 100', 'Art. 101', 'Art. 101', 'Art. 123', 'Art. 123', 'Art. 84']

DeltaPatents : Case Law DeltaPatents EPO Case Law: T 1779/09 - Escape from the inescapable trap
Although initially appearing as an 'inescapable trap', the appellant has found himself exactly in the situation envisaged in decision G 1/93 in that a feature newly introduced during examination was found by the Board to be limiting but to provide no technical contribution to the claimed invention and therefore to comply with Art. 123(2) and (3) EPC.
Summary of Facts and Submissions [paraphrased]
This case concerns an opposition appeal lodged by the proprietor against the Opposition Division's decision revoking European patent No. 1 171 836 in accordance with Article 101(2) and (3)(b) EPC.
In the contested decision the Opposition Division held that the ground for opposition mentioned in Article 100(c) together with Article 123(2) EPC prejudiced the maintenance of the patent. The Opposition Division concluded that claim 1 of the patent as granted extended beyond the content of the application as filed in view of two amended features, namely the feature "in a document handling program" and the feature "to identify only parts of the document, said parts comprising ... and being used as search terms".
The then appellant requested with the statement of grounds of appeal that the patent be maintained in amended form on the basis of a new main request or one of five new auxiliary requests, all filed with the statement. It further requested that the matter be remitted to the Opposition Division if the requirements of Article 123(2) EPC were met.
The Board summoned the appellant to oral proceedings. In a communication accompanying the summons, the Board summarised the issues likely to be discussed at the oral proceedings. None of the requests appeared to fulfil the requirements of Article 123(2) EPC. Furthermore, the Board stated that it was not fully convinced that any of the requests was compliant with Article 123(3) EPC. It informed the appellant that it was inclined, in case all objections were overcome, to remit the case to the Opposition Division for assessment of novelty and inventive step, in line with the appellant's request.
At the oral proceedings, following a discussion of issues related to Article 123(3) EPC, the appellant replaced all pending requests with a sole request comprising a new claim 1.
8.2.4 (...) The appellant nevertheless maintained that, notwithstanding the possible lack of basis of an unambiguous disclosure, claim 1 should be found to comply with Article 123(2) EPC, since the feature at issue was added during examination, did not provide a technical contribution to the subject-matter of the claimed invention and merely limited the protection conferred by the patent. In this respect, the appellant relied on Enlarged Board of Appeal decision G 1/93 (OJ EPO 1994, 541 - Limiting feature/ADVANCED SEMICONDUCTOR PRODUCTS).
This decision has European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2014:T177909.20140521. The whole decision can be found here. The file wrapper can be found here. Photo from www.freedigitalphotos.net
Geplaatst door Nico Cordes op 17:00
Labels: Art. 100(c) EPC , Art. 101(2) EPC , Art. 101(3)(b) EPC , Art. 123(2) EPC , Art. 123(3) EPC , Art. 84 EPC , G 1/93 , G 2/98 , inescapable trap