Source: https://justpatentlaw.blogspot.com/2015/08/
Timestamp: 2020-01-27 12:42:47
Document Index: 617580438

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art 123', 'application No. 98939886', 'Art. 84', 'Art. 123', 'Art 69', 'Art. 84']

Just Patent Law Blog: August 2015
T 0621/11 - A or the, an inescapable trap
EPO T 621/11
The invention relates to a medicament for treating or preventing a metastasis of a tumor.The patent is stuck in the inescapable trap (Art 123(2)/(3)) by changing "the step of inoculating a tumor in the patient" in the application as filed into " suitable for inoculating the tumor in a patient", because " the" tumor is the primary tumor (according to the Board), and inoculating this specific tumor is not disclosed in the application as filed. Reverting back to " a tumor" extends the scope of protection.
The Article 123(3) objections was admitted, even though late filed, "given the nature of the objection".
I. European patent No. EP1003533, based on European patent application No. 98939886.2, published as WO 99/07394 (hereafter referred to as "the application as filed") and entitled "Use of herpes vectors for tumor therapy", was granted with 17 claims.
Labels: A123(2), A123(3), inescapable trap
National decision - Partial priority
Patents Court of 10 July 2013 – HTC Corporation v Gemalto SA and HTC Corporation v Gemalto NV [2013] EWHC 1876 (Pat) (BAILII)
In this UK decision, a question was whether the claims had priority in view of the requirement of "same invention", because the claims were a generalization from the priority document.
This decision is also discussed in recent decision T 557/13 referring the questions about partial priority to the Enlarged Board in G1/15:
OJ 2015, Sp. 2.
Labels: from stock, national decisions, partial priority
T 1890/09 - Poisonous priority strikes again
For the decision, click here (online on 23.07.2015)
The Board finds a claim to be not novel over an embodiment disclosed in the published priority document.
The Board 3.2.02 does not at all discus partial priority, although the decision was taken on 26.03.2015, while Board 3.3.06 had announced months earlier in oral proceedings to refer questions to the Enlarged Board about that issue.
Credits to EdT for spotting this one (IPKat).
Im Prioritätsdokument ist dieses Merkmal nicht wörtlich offenbart.
Als Basis gibt die Beschwerdegegnerin Anspruch 8 und den (gleichlautenden) Absatz [0022] an.
Labels: poisonous priority
T 1882/12 - Optional claim features
For the decision, click here (online on 09.07.2015). Also discussed here.
The Board finds that a claim can recite optional features, in particular preferred ranges. This can not be objected to under Rule 43(3) or (4) and is, within limits, acceptable under Art. 84.
The obvious advantage is that the clarity of such preferred features can (likely) not be objected to in opposition, based on G3/14.
T 2552/11 - Accompanying person
For the decision, click here ("online on" date 23.07.2015
The request for allowing an accompanying person to speak should specify the subject-matter on which the person will speak. The present Board applies this requirement strictly.
Labels: A116, accompanying persons, oral proceedings
T 2403/11 - Contradicting yourself
EPO T 2403/11
For the decision, click here. (Published already on 23.07.2014)
This decision was published 23.07.2014 and is discussed in OJ 2014, SE4.
According to the EPO headnote, "An ill-defined parameter in a claim may lead to insufficiency of disclosure if this parameter is relevant for solving the problem addressed in the patent. If, in such a situation, the patent specification states that the ill-defined parameter is relevant and the patent proprietor initially argued along those lines, then, normally it cannot argue, later on in the proceedings, that this parameter does not matter."
However, the actual wording of the Board is not restricted to parameters - "The proprietor is not free to choose a particular approach when drafting the patent and when arguing its case, and then to change it later on when it realises that this approach might fail."
This statement may also be useful in case the patent proprietor initially argues that a technical effect is obtained by a broad claim 1 and later restricts the claim.
T 1930/12 - No video conference BoA
EPO T 1930/12
For the decision, click here (online on date: 06.07.2015)
In this examination appeal, the BoA refuses a request for oral proceedings via video-conferencing, because (i) the RPBA provide no rules for video-conferencing, and (ii) it was not clear how it can be ensured that the oral proceedings are public in such case.
GL E-II, 11.1.1. states that " Oral proceedings by video-conference are permitted only in the case of ex parte proceedings before an Examining Division. "
The second ground may possibly be caused by a lack of video conference equipment in the public part of the Isar Building, while the video conference rooms used by the Examining Division are likely not publicly accessible.
I. The appeal is against the decision of the examining division to refuse the present European patent application on the grounds of lack of inventive step (Article 56 EPC) [...]
T 2247/11 - Selection from two lists
EPO T 2247/11
The issue involves a whether a claim directed to (essentially) feature B + one or more of A, C, and D (each being lists) has basis in a claim specifying one or more of A, B, C and D. Hence, does the application provide basis for singling out B?
The Board looks what is actually aimed for with the method of the present invention, and notes that the examples only demonstrate B + (particular types of) A. Hence, claim 1 has no basis since it also covers B+C and B+D. The auxiliary request for B+A in contrast has basis.
The present case is a good example how the assessment of Art. 123(2) can be not overly formalistic but can be based on the actual technical teaching of the patent.
T 0343/12 - Not the library
EPO T 343/12
The issue was the public availability of a dissertation which had been received by a library.
The Board rejects public availability based on the receipt by the library, because no evidence of cataloging was submitted (and this would be required according to T 314/99).
However, the single copy possessed by the thesis supervisor would be a disclosure, because the opponent would not have refuted that this copy was at the free disposal of the thesis supervisor.
In my opinion, regarding the library issue, the approach followed in T 834/09 is more convincing: "this means that a printed document received by mail at a public library is clearly rendered available to the public, since the staff member in charge of its reception and date stamping is not bound by any obligation to maintain secrecy and is thus free to pass the document on to others, which is precisely his or her job."
T 0516/08 - Old secondary document
For the decision, click here (published 3 May 2010).
What is the relevance if a prior art document cited as secondary document is very old?
According to T516/08, the age of a document can "only play a role as regards the closest prior art". However, this decision seems to have been one-off. The decision has been cited by only one other decision and not for the aspect at issue; the case is not included in the Case Law Book.
The Case Law Book (I.D.9.7) states: "it would not be obvious to a skilled person to combine an isolated, very old document (i.e. 50 year old document), which had not given rise to a trend in the art and whose teaching ran counter to the present trend, with the document reflecting the closest state of the art (T 261/87, T 366/89, T 404/90)." However, this statement unfortunately does not identify the effect alone - what if the document is old, but not counter to the current trend?
In T164/03, the Board held that " Even though D29 was published about 45 years before the priority date of the patent in suit, it already related to light Diesel fuel having a sulphur content of 0.05% and the implication of insufficient lubrication [...]. Further, it appears from D15 that low sulphur content in Diesel fuel was not an issue for the suppliers before the governmental restriction due to environmental concerns took effect in Sweden and Japan in 1992, [...]. Given these circumstances, the skilled person had good reasons to consider the old technology of D29 at the priority date of the patent in suit in 1994, even though it did not play any role in the meantime." This suggests that looking in an old document without good reason can be non-obvious.
According to T 1408/04, "age of a document by itself is no reason to exclude a document as representing the closest prior art starting point"
Note that a 50 year old document can be closest prior art, in particular if it is technically closer to the claim than more recent documents (T 1869/11).
10. A further argument put forward by the appellant is that the publication dates of documents E1 [closest prior art] and E2 [E2: US 2067998] (1996 and 1937) lay too far apart and the significant time (more than five years) which had elapsed between E1 and the application date of the patent in suit (2001), were a clear indication that the present invention was not so easy to arrive at for the persons skilled in the art.
As regards the age of E2 the Board concurs with the case law in this respect (see Case Law of the Boards of Appeal, 5th edition 2006, Chapter I.D.3.7 [7th edition I.D.3.6 ) that this can only play a role as regards the closest prior art, which is E1, not E2.
With respect to E2, supporting the missing teaching, having been published 64 years before the application date the Board also concurs with the case law (see Case Law of the Boards of Appeal (supra), Chapter I.D.9.3) that it is not that period that counts, but that between the time at which the problem became apparent and the application date, which in any case cannot be longer than the five years between E1 and the application date, because it was with the package of E1 that the gripping problem emerged in the first place, A period of five years in the field of packaging cannot really be seen as long, particularly as it may result from a variety of causes: for example, there may have been a commercial reason for not adopting this new technique, because the old technique was found satisfactory by the clients and could also be improved in a different way, thus avoiding considerable investment costs involved in the adoption of a new technique on an industrial scale.
T 1426/13 - Opposition and straw man
EPO T 1426/13
For the decision, click here (stated publication date 23.07.2015)
The opposition was filed by a German "Gesellschaft bürgerlichen Rechts" (GbR). An issue was whether this was a legal entity capable of being opponent. According to the Board, this is possible, even though a GbR is not registered in a public register.
Another issue was that the (notice of) appeal was filed with a different name as used in the notice of opposition. Evidence of the name change was filed only later during the appeal procedure.
The Board: "The board concludes that the appeal was filed by the same legal entity as the opposition. Consequently, the appeal was admissible when it was filed. In view of the name change from "[X] GbR" to "[X] Patent- und Rechtsanwälte", the appellant was correctly identified when the appeal was filed and there is no need to correct its name."
The patent proprietor had raised an objection concerning the opponent's representation during the written appeal proceedings which was withdrawn at the oral proceedings before the board. The board did not see any reason to pursue the issue of its own motion. The opponent/appellant has, throughout the whole opposition and appeal proceedings, always been represented by Mr. [S] who may, as a professional representative, represent any party in any proceedings before the EPO. The board has not seen any reason to request an authorisation in view of the decision of the President of the EPO dated 12 July 2007 on the filing of authorisations (OJ EPO Special edition No. 3/2007, 128). It is irrelevant whether Mr. [S] could also act for the legal entity "Isarpatent GbR" by virtue of his role in this legal entity. It is equally irrelevant whether Mr. [S] was or is a member of any association of representatives (Rule 152(11) EPC) which may be related to the opponent/appellant.
2.1.5 The reference to "Reinhard Skuhra Weise & Partner GbR" on the letterhead was explained by the opponent as a reference to the former name of the same GbR. The board is convinced that this is correct. As there is no official registration of the GbR that could be used to verify the details of such legal entity, the board has to rely on the parties' assertions and the documents issued by the opponent. The documents filed with the opponent's letter dated 2 April 2015 [...] clearly show that the members of Reinhard Skuhra Weise & Partner GbR (RSW) intended to continue and continued the GbR as "Isarpatent GbR" without changing the identity of the GbR (see, in particular, the reference "vormals RSW" in Annex 4, preamble). The name change occurred before the opposition was filed (Annex 3 dated 9 December 2011). However, even if "Reinhard Skuhra Weise & Partner GbR" was another entity than Isarpatent GbR, it would still be clear from the documents filed on 23 December 2011 that only "Isarpatent GbR" could be the opponent because it was easy to distinguish between the references to the opponent and the letterhead of the opponent's representative (which is irrelevant for the identification of the party represented).
3.2.3 The appeal was filed on behalf of "ISARPATENT Patent- und Rechtsanwälte" whereas the decision under appeal concerned "isarpatent GbR" (patent proprietor's letter of 6 March 2015, page 14). The denomination "ISARPATENT Patent- und Rechtsanwälte" already appeared on Form 2300E when the opposition was filed under the heading "Representative", together with the name of the representative (Mr. S) and the reference to the association of representatives No. 73 who may have been registered under the name "Isarpatent" or "Isarpatent Patent- und Rechtsanwälte". In any case, as a legal entity may not act as a representative, the reference on Form 2300E can only mean that the opponent was represented by Mr. S or any other professional representative in association No. 73. It does not contain any information on the relationship between "Isarpatent GbR" and "Isarpatent Patent- und Rechtsanwälte".
T 1958/13 - Technical effect of user interface
EPO T 1958/13
The invention relates to copy/pasting with a touch-screen display (e.g. smartphone). The distinguish feature is "the text data within an area between the first and the second position of the dragging motion is cut or deleted based on the direction of the dragging motion."
The Board states that the effects of simplifying the user's operation, improving the user experience and providing more user-convenient text editing functions, are in principle technical effects because "in the end they aim at providing tools which serve or assist user activities"
However, the Board finds that the claimed technical effects are not credibly obtained because "whether they are actually achieved depends exclusively on subjective user skills or preferences".
Labels: A56, comvik, user interface
T 1502/11 - Self-contradicting but enabled
EPO T 1502/11
Claim 1 of the main request in opposition was inconsistent but apparently not open to a clarity objection (G3/14)
The claims are interpreted in such a way that technical inconsistencies are avoided and the interpretation is consistent with the description.
The Board notes that, the " invention" which is to be sufficiently disclosed according to A83 is the subject-matter of the claims. The Board interprets the claims in the light of the description and finds them to be sufficiently disclosed.
The opponent had not substantiated lack of inventive step in appeal, hence this ground is disregarded.
[In the pending Main Request, claim 1 is based on claims 1 and 3 as granted].
2.1 Die Annahme, dass ein erteilter Anspruch klar sei, wenn sowohl die Prüfungs- als auch die Einspruchsabteilung dazu keine Stellung bezogen haben, kann nicht akzeptiert werden. Es ist einerseits nicht eindeutig, ob die Prüfungsabteilung einen möglichen Klarheitsmangel übersah oder als nicht gegeben ansah (G 3/14, Gründe 80 (k)). Andererseits ist ein Klarheitsmangel kein Einspruchsgrund und muss deshalb von der Einspruchsabteilung nicht diskutiert werden.
Labels: A56, A83, A84, clarity
T 1646/12 - No Art 69 for patentability
EPO T 1646/12
For the decision, click here. ([C], no headnote, DE)
The Board follows established case law that for patentability (rather than scope of protection) Article 69 EPC is not to be applied, but considers that the claims are nevertheless to be read in the context of the description.
Two extremes are to be avoided, according to the Board. Features described in the description, but not in the claims, are not to be read into the claims. On the other hand, the claims are not to be considered as completely separate from the description.
I. Die Beschwerdeführerin (Patentinhaberin) hat gegen die Entscheidung der Einspruchsabteilung, das Patent Nr. 1 515 857 zu widerrufen, Beschwerde eingelegt. [...]
In diesem Zusammenhang gilt es zwei Extreme zu meiden. Zum einen ist es nicht zulässig, die Ansprüche und die Beschreibung gewissermaßen als kommunizierende Gefäße zu betrachten, zum Beispiel, indem man einschränkende Merkmale, die zwar in der Beschreibung beschrieben sind, aber nicht in den Ansprüchen, in letztere hineinliest (siehe dazu "Rechtsprechung der Beschwerdekammern des EPA", 7. Auflage, 2013, II.A.6.3.4). Eine solche Übertragung von einschränkenden Merkmalen kann nicht durch Auslegung, sondern nur durch eine Änderung der Ansprüche erreicht werden.
Zum anderen kann man den Anspruch auch nicht als von der Beschreibung völlig getrennt betrachten. Der Fachmann, der einen Anspruch auslegt, muss sich zumindest vergewissern, ob die Ausdrücke des Anspruchs ihrem üblichen Wortsinn nach zu verstehen sind oder ob die Beschreibung für diese Ausdrücke eine besondere Bedeutung definiert. Auch bei unklaren Ansprüchen kommt der Fachmann nicht umhin, in den restlichen Ansprüchen, aber auch in der Beschreibung und ggf. in den Figuren nach Elementen zu suchen, die zu einer Klärung beitragen können (siehe dazu "Rechtsprechung der Beschwerdekammern des EPA", op.cit., II.A.6.3.3). Es ist also innerhalb gewisser Grenzen zulässig, und unter Umständen sogar notwendig, die Beschreibung bei der Auslegung der Ansprüche heranzuziehen; einer Berufung auf Artikel 69 (1) EPÜ bedarf es dazu nicht.
Labels: [C], A69, claims
T 557/13 - G1/15 - Partial priority and poisonous divisional
EPO T0557/13 - G0001/15 - referral - [A] ( T557/13 ; G 1/15 ; G1/15 )
The Board refers the following questions to the Enlarged Board of Appeal:
Labels: [A], divisional, enlarged board, partial priority, poisonous priority, priority
R 0009/14 - Summary of problem-solution approach
EPO R 9/14
For the decision, click here. (For the appeal decision under review T 2044/09, see here)
The Enlarged Board (three-member panel) gives a useful and concise summary of the problem-solution approach in this petition-for-review case (with minor edits in italics):
It is established board of appeal case law that inventive step is to be examined using the problem-solution approach. That means first determining the closest prior art. Then the technical problem vis-à-vis the closest prior art that has been effectively solved is determined. If it is established that the claimed subject-matter has a technical effect or improvement compared with the closest prior art - which is usually shown by means of comparative tests - the problem solved [i.e., the objective technical problem] may be formulated in terms of [how to modify the closest prior art to obtain] the effect/improvement. If no effect is identifiable, the problem solved may be formulated in terms of [providing] an alternative to the closest prior art. Finally, it is examined whether the technical features claimed, which achieve the results, i.e. solve the technical problem, are an obvious solution given the information contained in the prior art.
Further main points
Regarding the alleged procedural violation, the OD had maintained the patent as granted. The opponent-appellant did not attend oral proceedings, the Board had issued no preliminary opinion and only said "please present your case" and asked about comparative tests. The patent was revoked for lack of inventive step. I can imagine the patentee was disappointed. Nevertheless, the EBA approves of this course of events (edit 10.10.2019)
The EBA also states that "the petitioner was unable to submit comparative tests vis-à-vis the closest prior art when asked by the chairman. And as patent proprietor, the petitioner – not the Board, as it seems to think – bore the burden of proof." In my opinion, the opponent-appellant initially has the burden of proof to show lack of technical effect or at least cast reasonable doubt on the alleged effect T1797/09), even if he is absent during oral proceedings. The issue may have been how to Board should have proceeded after deciding to shift the burden of proof to the patentee: some time for the patentee to carry out the experiments would be reasonable. Otherwise, the whole purpose of shifting the burden of proof is void if the patent proprietor must carry out the experiment in order to anticipate for any decision of the Board to shift the burden to him.
I. The respondent (patent proprietor) in case T 2044/09 has filed a petition for review under Article 112a EPC against the decision of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.3.02 dated 11 February 2014 setting aside the contested opposition division's decision and revoking European patent [..] for lack of inventive step (Article 56 EPC). [...]
Labels: A56, petition for review, problem-solution
T 0038/11 - Postponement not requested
EPO T 38/11
The Board: "Although the appellant declared being surprised by the course of events [during oral proceedings before OD], it did at no point request a postponement of the oral hearing. The appellant continued defending its case for more than two hours, with the aid of a technical expert, not only for the main request, but also for the claims of the auxiliary requests. For the board, this sequence of events is an indication that the appellant was in effect not prevented from pursuing its case."
Practice guidance: if you formally express surprise during OP, always request postponement.
The decision also deals with an interesting (late-filed) insufficiency attack based on the argument that the patent's examples would not actually provide the synergistic effect recited in the claims.
- The ground of opposition [of insufficiency of disclosure] was for the first time mentioned in the opponent's letter dated 12 August 2010, page 7 (point 2.1).
T 0714/13 - Second use not medical
EPO T 714/13
The applicant asserts that claim 1 specifies a second medical use. The claim is directed "a composition for use in the induction of selective apoptosis of human tumour cell types comprising ...".
Board "The wording of claim 1 of the main request does not require that the technical effect is achieved only in and for a medical treatment under Article 53(c) EPC 2000. The purpose stated in feature i) of claim 1 "for use in the induction of selective apoptosis of human tumor cell-types" does not mention any method of treatment as required by Articles 54(5) and 53(c) EPC 2000, but merely relates to a technical effect which may also be attained in vitro.
Labels: A54(5)
T 0375/13 - "Stable" as parameter
EPO T 375/13
The OD had deemed the word "stable" in the claim resulted in a lack of sufficiency, the term being an undefined parameter.
The Board does not agree. " Even if in most cases a specific condition is not defined of what is meant by a stable pharmaceutical product, the person skilled in the art would not consider the adjective "stable" as so uncommon and ill-defined as to lead to a lack of sufficiency."
Note that both "uncommon" and " ill-defined" are mentioned as criteria.
I. The appeal of the patent proprietor (appellant) lies against the decision of the opposition division announced at the oral proceedings on 18 October 2012 to revoke European Patent 1 169 062. The patent was granted on the basis of 9 claims, claim 1 reading as follows: [...]
8. Lack of sufficiency on the basis of the feature "such complex being stable at a temperature of at least 121 °C for a period effective to sterilise the complex" was the main reason for revocation of the patent.
T 1775/11 - Parameters and testing methods
The claims were directed to " amorphous silica for use in a dental composition" having certain parameters.
The Board first finds that the two examples do not allow for obtaining silicas having properties covering the whole width of the claims.
More creative and quite ingenious is the following argument of the opponents: "The [opponents] argued convincingly that these highly specific test procedures might be usual in the field of abrasive silicas developed especially for toothpaste applications, but are not common in other important fields of application of finely divided amorphous silicas (e.g. as fillers, thickeners, absorbents etc.). The present claims are however not restricted to amorphous silicas in toothpastes or as abrasives. Therefore, so the [opponents'] argument, it was extremely burdensome for the skilled person to repeat these experiments on a trial and error basis, without proper guidance as to which results could be expected."
T 1339/13 - Clarity and description
EPO T 1339/13
The Opponent considers the claims to be unclear because of the phrase "the spring force increases only slowly"
"The Board agrees with the appellant that the term "only slowly" is a relative term and that it is preferable not to use such a relative term in a claim. However, in the context of the claim at hand, this term imparts a clear teaching to a skilled reader. In addition, there is no basis in the disclosure for a more precise wording and this feature is not the only feature distinguishing the claimed invention from the prior art"
It is interesting that lack of more precise wording in the description is a reason why the claim complies with Art. 84 EPC.
Also interesting analysis of whether a MSc thesis of 1985 put on the shelf of a library of a university department was publicly available. The Board accepts so, and also admits the document while only introduced in appeal (saying that it "could and should have been filed in the opposition proceedings").
Labels: A84, publication date
T 1825/11 - Continuation opposition after lapse
EPO T 1825/11
In the present case, the patent had lapsed in all Contracting States during opposition-appeal. The question was which of the parties can request continuation of the proceedings. Rule 84(1) EPC gives that right to the opponent (in first instance proceedings).
The Board notes "that the patent proprietor also can request that the appeal proceedings be continued", thereby following established case law (in particular T 520/10)
As a comment, note that T 520/10 states that "it is the patent proprietor who can request that the appeal-proceedings". The present decision states "that the patent proprietor also can request that the appeal proceedings be continued". Presumably, each appellant has the right, regardless of its status as proprietor or opponent.
T 2196/11 - Continuation of opposition after lapse
EPO T 2196/11
The case concerns the somewhat unusual case of continuation of opposition-appeal after lapse of the patent in all Contracting States. The Board applies the rules for such case.
The opposition-appeal was continued the (appealing) opponent had requested so (following Rule 84(1) EPC) and the patent proprietor had not withdraw approval of the text.
I wonder whether withdrawal approval of the text would result in termination of the proceedings (as the Board seems to assume) or in revocation of the patent.
Although the respondent (proprietor) had stated that the patent had lapsed in all Contracting States and that no application for restoration had been made in any Contracting State, it did not however withdraw its approval of any text on which the patent could be maintained and indeed it maintained its main request and all of its auxiliary requests. The appellant (opponent) also requested [in response to the Communication under Rule 84(1) EPC) that the opposition proceedings be continued. The stated intention of the appellant (opponent) not to continue proceedings if the patent had irrevocably lapsed is a conditional request over which the Board has no control. Furthermore, by telefax dated 3 July 2015 it explicitly maintained its request that the patent be revoked.
[After jump: revocation inter alia for failure to amend the description in auxiliary requests]
T 0837/13 - Admissibility appeal and translated appellant name
EPO T 837/13
An inconsistent translation of the name of the Japanese appellant does not render the appeal inadmissible.
Another point was validity of priority in view of the requirement of " same invention" . The Board finds that although for valid priority, the priority-claiming application should not solve a new problem different and not derivable from the problem posed in the priority document (T647/97), it is not required for the priority-claiming application to address all problems solved by the priority application.
After the jump: the priority issue.
Labels: A107, priority, same invention
T 0034/12 - Rule 164 and amendments of the claims
Rule 137(5) EPC is a powerful tool for the examiner, but recent case law demonstrates that it is difficult to handle. The present case is an example.
The Examiner had found D1 anticipating an embodiment of claim 1. Interestingly, he issued a partial search report, alleging lack of unity of invention of claim 1 between the anticipated embodiment wherein a certain monomer is a " diquat" and all other embodiment of claim 1. The applicant did not pay a second search fee, and added a feature from the description to distinguish over D1. The ED refused the application as still relating to embodiment wherein the monomer is not a diquat.
The Board finds a substantial procedural violation since the decision is insufficiently reasoned.
As a comment, note that Rule 164 and Rule 137(5) do not turn on lack of unity of the claims of the application as filed. As the Board states: "If [the] objection of lack of unity of claim 1 turned out to be unjustified in view of the amendment to the claims, the applicant would have been entitled to have the full claimed subject-matter searched." (emphasis added). This despite Rule 164(2) also covering the case that an invention is claimed which is " not covered by the international search report" . Apparently, this must be read in the same way as in Rule 137(5) EPC, namely: unsearched subject-matter which does not combine with the originally claimed invention or group of inventions to form a singe general inventive concept. Hence, adding features from the description should probably be allowed in the same way as for Rule 137(5), as explained in GL H-II,6.2
Rule 164(2) (old: 01.04.2010 - 31.10.2014)
(2) Where the examining division finds that the application documents on which the European grant procedure is to be based do not meet the requirements of unity of invention, or protection is sought for an invention not covered by the international search report or, as the case may be, by the supplementary international search report or supplementary European search report, it shall invite the applicant to limit the application to one invention covered by the international search report, the supplementary international search report or the supplementary European search report
II. The application under appeal was filed under international application number PCT/IB2006/054324 and published as WO2007/057865. The European Patent Office acting as the International Searching Authority, issued an international search [...] report (ISR) and a Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority (WOISA), both covering all claims 1-25 on file.
Labels: R137(5), R164, unity of invention, unsearched
T 557/13 - G1/15 - Partial priority and poisonous...
T 2196/11 - Continuation of opposition after lapse...
T 0837/13 - Admissibility appeal and translated ap...