Source: https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t121297eu1.html
Timestamp: 2020-02-22 11:06:52
Document Index: 675942021

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 100', 'Art. 100', 'Art. 54', 'Art. 123', 'Art 84', 'Art. 123', 'Art. 84', 'Art. 84', 'Art. 123']

EPO - T 1297/12 () of 11.10.2016
T 1297/12 () of 11.10.2016
ECLI:EP:BA:2016:T129712.20161011
07725339.1
B07B 1/24
Amendments - allowable (no)- disclaimer not allowable
Amendments - disclosure not unrelated and remote (Main request)
Remittal to the department of first instance - (yes) first auxilairy request
I. The appeal lies from the interlocutory decision of the opposition division according to which it was held that European patent number 2 021 385 (granted on European patent application number 07725339.1, derived from international application number PCT/EP2007/004429, published under the number WO 2007/137713) could be maintained in amended form on the basis of the second auxiliary request, submitted during oral proceedings.
II. Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 11 and 12 of the application as filed read as follows:
"1. Uncompounded polyolefin powder having a particle size distribution such that D95 is less than 355mym and (D90-D10)/D50 is less than 1.2, where D95, D90, D50 and D10 are defined such that 95wt%, 90wt%, 50wt% or 10wt% of the polymer particles have a diameter of less than D95, D90, D50 and D10 respectively.
2. Uncompounded polyolefin powder according to claim 1 which is polyethylene or polypropylene
3. Uncompounded polyolefin powder according to claim 1 or 2, having a D95 of less than 300mym, preferably less than 250mym, and more preferably less than 210mym.
5. Uncompounded polyolefin powder according to any preceding claim, having a D5 of at least 50mym, preferably at least 60mym.
6. Uncompounded polyolefin powder according to any preceding claim which is a multimodal polyethylene.
10. Uncompounded polymer powder according to any preceding claim, which when compounded and blown into a 200mym thickness film has a gel count, expressed as the number of gels larger than 200mym per square metre of film, of less than 500, preferably less than 200, and more preferably less than 100.
11. Blown film made from a polymer powder as defined in any preceding claim, which for a 200mym thickness film has a gel count, expressed as the number of gels larger than 200mym per square metre of film, of less than 500, preferably less than 200 and more preferably less than 100.
12. Pipe made from a polymer powder as defined in any of claims 1 to 10 which has been compounded."
The patent was granted on the basis of the unamended claims of the application.
III. A notice of opposition against the patent was filed in which revocation of the patent on the grounds of Art. 100(a) EPC (lack of novelty, lack of inventive step) and Art. 100(b) EPC was requested.
Inter alia the following document was relied upon by the opponent:
D3: US-B2-6 716 924.
IV. The decision of the opposition division was based on a main request and two auxiliary requests.
The decision held that the main request did not meet the requirements of Art. 54 EPC in view of the disclosure of an example of D3 and that the first auxiliary request did not meet the requirements of Art. 123(3) EPC. Novelty was not examined for the first auxiliary request and inventive step was not examined for either the main request or the first auxiliary request.
It is recorded in the minutes of the oral proceedings before the opposition division that the opponent stated that there were "no formal remarks and no objections" to the second auxiliary request.
V. The patent proprietor lodged an appeal against the decision.
Together with the statement of grounds of appeal amended main, first and second auxiliary requests were submitted.
VI. The respondent/opponent replied, inter alia raising objections to the allowability of a disclaimer in claim 1 of the main request and to a lack of clarity pursuant to Art 84 EPC in respect of claim 1 of the first auxiliary request. It was stated that maintenance on the basis of the second auxiliary request was not challenged.
VII. In its response, the appellant/patent proprietor filed amended main and first auxiliary requests. In particular the formulation of the disclaimer in claim 1 of the main request was modified.
VIII. The board issued a summons to oral proceedings and a communication in which concerns were expressed as to the allowability of the disclaimer in the main request and to the clarity of the first auxiliary request.
IX. The appellant/patent proprietor filed with letter of 19 September 2016 further amended main and first auxiliary requests.
"Uncompounded polyolefin powder which is a multimodal polyethylene and has a particle size distribution such that D95 is less than 335mym, D5 is at least 60mym, and (D90-D10)/D50 is less than 1.2, where D95, D90, D50 and D10 are defined such that 95wt%, 90wt%, 50wt% or 10wt% of the polymer particles have a diameter of less than D95, D90, D50 and D10 respectively, but excluding the case in which all of the uncompounded polyolefin powder is a sieved fraction in which:
the minimum particle size is 75mym and the maximum particle size is 100mym, or
the minimum particle size is 100mym and the maximum particle size is 180mym, or
the minimum particle size is 180mym and the maximum particle size is 250mym."
X. Oral proceedings were held before the board on 11 October 2016.
In the course of the oral proceedings the appellant/patent proprietor filed an amended first auxiliary request, replacing that on file.
Claim 1 of the new first auxiliary request read as follows:
"Blown film, which for a 200mym thickness film has a gel count, expressed as the number of gels larger than 200mym per square metre of film, of less than 500, preferably less than 200, and more preferably less than 100, made from an uncompounded polyolefin powder, or pipe made from an uncompounded polyolefin powder which has been compounded, wherein the uncompounded polyolefin powder is a multimodal polyethylene and has a particle size distribution such that D95 is less than 335mym, D5 is at least 60mym and (D90-D10)/D50 is less than 1.2, where D95, D90, D50 and D10 are defined such that 95wt%, 90wt%, 50 wt% or 10wt% of the polymer particles have a diameter of less than D95, D90, D50 and D10 respectively."
XI. The arguments of the appellant/patent proprietor can be summarised as follows:
(a) Main request - Art. 123(2) EPC - allowability of the disclaimer.
D3 itself was not a remote teaching. However that part of the disclosure identified as novelty destroying, i.e. three sieved fractions of example 1 reported in table 3 having defined particle size ranges was remote, as the skilled person would never have considered any of these fractions as being relevant to the invention of D3 or to the problem underlying D3 or that of the patent in suit. These measurement fractions did not represent the teaching of D3 itself. The objection of lack of novelty was merely a consequence of the sieves which had been employed. Had different sieves been used, then arguably the novelty objection would not have arisen, although the same product was being analysed. This demonstrated that the cited disclosures were in, the terminology of decision G 1/03, accidental.
In this connection relevance had to be assessed not on the basis of the entire document but with respect to the specific disclosure within it. Thus it was possible for a document which in its totality was relevant to contain disclosures e.g. in the report of examples which were not relevant.
The amendments made established novelty over D3. The claims as amended reflected the structure of the claims as granted meaning that an objection of Art. 84 EPC could not be raised (following G 3/14).
Novelty and inventive step should be dealt with by the first instance following remittal.
XII. The arguments of the respondent/opponent can be summarised as follows:
Evidence that D3 was not a remote teaching was provided by the patentee itself which proposed the document as the closest prior art in the response to the notice of opposition.
"Remoteness" had to be decided on the basis of the entire document - not a part thereof in isolation. Even following the position of the appellant in this respect, a sieved fraction could not be considered as remote since the patent in suit itself proposed the use of screening to provide the desired particle size distribution. Since D3 was related to obtaining polymers of defined morphology, the particle size distribution, demonstrated by the sieved fractions, was central to the teaching thereof. Consequently, following G 1/03, in particular section 2.3.4 of the reasons, the cited sieved fractions could not be considered to represent a remote teaching.
Although Art. 84 EPC was not available in respect of this request the claims still presented some ambiguities which impinged on the questions of novelty and inventive step. Further it was considered that there were defects in respect of sufficiency of disclosure, although it was not possible to formulate these in respect of the amended claims within the time constraints of the oral proceedings.
XIII. The appellant requested that the decision under appeal be set aside and the case be remitted to the department of first instance for further prosecution on the basis of the main request filed with letter of 19 September 2016, or on the basis of the first auxiliary request filed during the oral proceedings, or on the basis of the second auxiliary request filed with the statement of grounds of appeal.
XIV. The respondent requested that the main request be refused and that in the event the new first auxiliary request be admitted to the proceedings the case be remitted to the department of first instance for further prosecution.
According to examples 1 and 2 multimodal polyethylene/1-butene copolymers were produced.
The particle size distribution of the polymers were evaluated by sieving giving the results reported in Table 3:
The fractions of example 1 between 180mym and 100mym were considered according to the decision of the opposition division to anticipate the subject-matter of claim 1 of the main request, which finding was not disputed by the appellant/patent proprietor. On the contrary, in the statement of grounds of appeal the appellant indicated that the fractions between 250mym and 180mym and those between 100mym and 75mym also anticipated the subject-matter claimed. As a result disclaimers in respect of these fractions were inserted into claim 1.
Consequently, to apply the vocabulary of T 1146/01, the fractions of example 1 of D3 cited as novelty
destroying serve to "elucidate" the teaching of D3 and as such cannot, by the standards of the case law discussed above, be seen as "unrelated and remote" from the invention of D3 or from the technical problem common to D3 and the patent in suit.
1.3 The main request therefore does not meet the requirements of Art. 123(2) EPC.
2.1 The first auxiliary request was filed during the oral proceedings before the board.
Claim 1 as amended corresponds in effect to claim 1 of the first auxiliary request as submitted before the opposition division, modified to take account of discussions before the board. The amendments made consist of combining existing claims and are neither complicated or extensive.
The respondent did not object to the admission of the request to the proceedings and the request was therefore admitted.
2.3 Objections under Article 123(2) or 123(3) EPC were not raised by the respondent. In view of the requests of both parties for remittal to have the first auxiliary request dealt with with respect to the requirements of the EPC, the Board considers it appropriate to exercise the power conferred on it by Article 111(1) EPC to remit the case to the opposition division for further prosecution.
Nevertheless the board would like to make the following observation in respect of the permissible extent of scrutiny of this request in the light of decision G 3/14.
Claim 1 corresponds to a combination of features of granted claims which were linked by dependency and reference.
As such the subject-matter of claim 1 of the first auxiliary request corresponds to a "Type B" amendment as dealt with in decision G 3/14 (see G 3/14, Reasons for the decision section B.2) for which it was concluded in section G.(ii) of the reasons of G 3/14 that the claims of the patent may be examined for compliance with the requirements of Article 84 EPC only when, and then only to the extent that the amendment introduces non-compliance with Article 84 EPC.
2. The case is remitted to the department of first instance for further prosecution