Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t112561eu1.html
Timestamp: 2017-10-23 19:03:19
Document Index: 179993325

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 34', 'art 1', 'art 34', 'art 34', 'art 1', 'art 34', 'art 1', 'art 34', 'art 1', 'art 34', 'art 1', 'art 34', 'art 1', 'art 34', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art 1']

EPO - T 2561/11 () of 4.7.2016
T 2561/11 () of 4.7.2016
ECLI:EP:BA:2016:T256111.20160704
04732855.4
Decision text in EN (PDF, 1.118M)
Admissibility of appeal 1 (yes)
Admission of a late-filed document (yes)
Novelty (no; main request, auxiliary requests 1 to 3 and 7)
Inadmissible extension (yes; auxiliary requests 4 to 6)
Meaning of the expression "a request defining the subject of the appeal" in Rule 99(1)(c) EPC (point 2.5 of the reasons)
The opposition division had in particular considered document D1 (US 3,211,178).
II. In response to the provisional opinion of the board annexed to the summons to oral proceedings, appellant 2 filed a new main request and new auxiliary requests 1 to 3.
III. On 28 April 2016, appellant 1 filed document D4 (WO 82/03439).
IV. The oral proceedings before the board of appeal were held on 4 July 2016. At the beginning of the proceedings the representative of appellant 2 declared that the former main request and former auxiliary requests 1 to 3 were maintained as auxiliary requests 4 to 7.
V. Appellant 2 (patent proprietor) requested that the appeal be dismissed or that the decision under appeal be set aside and the patent be maintained in amended form on the basis of the main or auxiliary requests 1 to 3 filed with letter dated 17 September 2015, or auxiliary requests 4 to 6 filed as main and auxiliary requests 1 and 2 with the statement setting out the grounds of appeal of 17 February 2012 or auxiliary request 7 filed as auxiliary request 3 filed with letter dated 1 November 2012. Furthermore it was requested that the case be remitted to the department of first instance if document D4 is admitted to the proceedings.
VI. Appellant 1 (opponent) requested that the decision under appeal be set aside and that the European patent be revoked.
"Coaxial coupling comprising a female part (5) and a male part (20) which are couplable to each other, the female part and the male part each having an inner passage and a concentric outer passage, wherein the inner passage of the female part is fluidly connected to the inner passage of the male part and the outer passage of the female part is fluidly connected to the outer passage of the male part in the coupled state (C) of the coupling, one of the parts further comprising a by-pass valve (3) that guides the fluid flow internally from the inner passage to the outer passage thereof in a non-coupled state of the coupling, the other part comprising an activator (22) for activating the by-pass valve (3) during coupling of the two parts,
the by-pass valve (3) is adapted to guide:
- at a first stage (A) during coupling of the two parts, the fluid flow from the inner passage of the one part to the outer passages of both parts, wherein the outer passages of both parts are connected together; and
- at a second stage (B) during coupling of the two parts, the fluid flow from the inner passage of the one part to the inner passage of the other part,
wherein during coupling of the two parts, the first stage (A) occurs prior to the second stage (B)."
Claim 1 of the first auxiliary request differs from claim 1 of the main request by the additional feature: "and wherein:
at the first stage (A) during coupling, the one part is partially inserted into the other part;
at the second stage (B), the one part is further inserted into the other part; and
at the coupled state (C), the two parts are fully coupled."
and by amendments of the reference signs in brackets.
Claim 1 of the second auxiliary request differs from claim 1 of the first auxiliary request by the additional feature: "wherein at second stage (B) during coupling of both parts, which stage is intermediate to the first (A) and coupled state (C):
- the by-pass valve (3) opens the fluid passage to the inner passage of the other part (20), while the outer passages are connected with each other and with the inner passage of the one part (5), so that all passages are connected to each other".
Claim 1 of the third auxiliary request differs from claim 1 of the second auxiliary request by the additional feature: "wherein at the first stage (A), a low pressure valve (21) is activated to allow the outer passages of both parts to be fluidly connected".
Claim 1 of the fourth auxiliary request differs from claim 1 of the main request in that "(C)" has been deleted after the first occurrence of "coupled state", in that both references "(B)" have been replaced by references "(C)", and in that "the" has been inserted before "coupling" in the last feature.
Claim 1 of the fifth auxiliary request differs from claim 1 of the fourth auxiliary request by the additional feature "and wherein:
at the first stage (A), the one part is partially inserted into the other part; and
at the second stage (C), the two parts are fully coupled".
Claim 1 of the sixth auxiliary request differs from claim 1 of the fifth auxiliary request by the additional feature "and wherein:
at the first stage (A), a low pressure valve (21) is activated to allow the outer passages of both parts to be fluidly connected."
Claim 1 of the seventh auxiliary request corresponds to claim 1 of the request which the opposition division had found to comply with the requirements of the EPC. It differs from claim 1 of the fifth auxiliary request in that "characterized in that" has been replaced by "wherein", and by the additional feature "wherein at a third stage (B) during coupling of both parts, which stage is intermediate to the first (A) and second stage (C):
VIII. Appellant 1 argued as follows:
(a) Admissibility of appeal 1
The appeal is admissible. It is correct that the notice of appeal does not mention the opponent, but the notice mentions the same file reference as the opposition and the undersigned representative acted on behalf of the opponent in the oral proceedings before the opposition division. The filing of the appeal of appellant 1 has not adversely affected the patent proprietor. G 1/12 has established the possibility of correcting the name of the appellant. Appellant 2 knew very well who had filed the appeal. The error was corrected by letter dated 20 June 2012.
The notice of appeal implicitly contains a request for the revocation of the opposed patent. This was also the original request filed with the opposition.
(b) Admissibility of document D4
The document should be admitted. A competitor informed appellant 1 of the existence of this document on 13 April 2016. The document is highly relevant; it discloses all the features of claim 1.
(c) Remittal to the opposition division
Appellant 1 did not object to a remittal.
(d) Novelty of the main request
The sequence of claim 1 is unambiguously disclosed in the first paragraph of page 9 of document D4. There is a clear disclosure of the connection of the outer passages and of the inner passages via the outer passages. The inner passage is established when the high pressure channel 11 is still connected with the chamber 44 for the return flow, i.e. with the outer passage. The inner passages are connected when the outer passages are also connected.
(e) Novelty of auxiliary requests 1 and 2
The subject-matter of both requests lacks novelty over document D4.
(f) Novelty of auxiliary request 3
There is an unambiguous disclosure of a low-pressure valve 24 in document D4, page 8, lines 18-31. The subject-matter of auxiliary request 3 lacks novelty over document D4.
(g) Auxiliary requests 4 to 6
Claim 1 of the those requests corresponds to an inadmissible intermediate generalisation violating the requirements of Article 123(2) EPC, in particular because the essential stage B has been deleted.
(h) Auxiliary request 7
The subject-matter of this request lacks novelty over document D4.
IX. Appellant 2 argued as follows:
Rule 99 EPC expresses the need for the patent proprietor to know who it is up against. The notice of appeal mentions no other entity than the opponent's representative and the patent proprietor. Contrary to the situation dealt with in decision G 1/12, there is no erroneous reference to a wrong appellant: there is no reference to the appellant at all. The omission of any mention cannot be equated to a wrong mention. Therefore, there is no element eligible for correction: the repair of an omission does not qualify as a correction of an error. No proof for a genuine error has ever been supplied. There are third parties who started to use the invention, one of whom is known to have supplied appellant 1 with document D4; they could have reasonably employed Mr Vuillermoz, who had proven to be able to be successful to some degree in the preceding opposition proceedings. When the notice of appeal is considered in isolation, there is no justifiable reason on file to assume that the appeal was filed in the name of the former opponent. As a matter of fact, it is not clear at all on behalf of whom the notice of appeal was filed. There are decisions where appeals filed on behalf of the representative himself were found to be inadmissible, such as J 1/92.
The jurisprudence makes a distinction between the position of patent proprietors and opponents: the wrong identification of the opponent cannot be remedied (T 590/94). A transfer of an opposition is not allowed (G 3/97, G 2/04). There are strict conditions about the identity, the transfer, the prohibition of trade in oppositions, and the EPO has a duty to examine ex officio (T 1178/04). Decision G 1/12 cannot serve as excuse for such a transfer of opposition. By declaring the notice of appeal admissible because it is deducible on behalf of whom the appeal was formed, the board would go against a whole line of jurisprudence.
The notice of appeal does not define the subject of the appeal either. Decision T 9/08 cited by the board in the annex to the summons does not apply because the case underlying this decision was a simple case of rejection of the opposition. In the present case the third auxiliary request among four was maintained. It was not clear whether the opponent wanted the patent to be revoked or the fourth auxiliary request to be examined. Also, decision T 9/08 is related to the grounds of appeal rather than the notice of appeal. Therefore, a reference to this decision is inappropriate.
In its preliminary opinion the board is too eager to excuse the deficiencies of the notice of appeal. Its approach deprives Rule 99(1) EPC of its significance.
The document has been filed too late and should not be admitted to the proceedings. Moreover, appellant 1 has failed to show that document D4 is prima facie relevant.
If document D4 is admitted, the board should refer the case back to the opposition division; otherwise, appellant 2 would be deprived of assessment of its case in two independent instances, which would violate Article 6 ECHR. A remittal would also give appellant 2 the opportunity to file additional requests.
Document D4 does not disclose the claimed sequence of events. Figure 3 appears to disclose that the apertures 12 are covered by the slide ring 4 before the lower apertures 3 appear in the centre bore of element 28. The description is vague in respect of what exactly the sealing ring 26 is. The description appears to disclose that the outer passages and the inner passages are simultaneously connected, which is different from the sequence of claim 1. The argument of lack of novelty is based on an alleged location of seal 26, which is not shown in the drawings. Several locations can be imagined. Appellant 1's assumption is retrospect.
The amendments on which these requests are based aimed at clarifying the subject-matter but do not further distinguish it over the state of the art.
Document D4 does not disclose the existence of a low-pressure valve. The sliding ring 4 cannot be the anticipation of two distinct claim features.
The subject-matter of claim 1 of auxiliary requests 4 to 6 complies with the requirements of Article 123 EPC. Intermediate generalisations are not per se violations of this provision. The omission of step B is possible because the skilled person would understand that step A in itself achieves the unwanted build-up of pressure.
This request corresponds to the request that had been found to be allowable by the opposition division. It was introduced in case the board found the appeal of appellant 1 to be admissible.
The application on which the opposed patent is based was filed on 13 May 2004. According to Article 7 of the Act revising the EPC of 29 November 2000 (OJ EPO 2007, Special edition No. 4, 217) and the Decision of the Administrative Council of 28 June 2001 on the transitional provisions under Article 7 of the Act revising the EPC of 29 November 2000 (OJ EPO 2007, Special edition No. 4, 219), Article 54 EPC 1973 and Articles 101, 106-108, 123(2) EPC apply in the present case. As a consequence, Rule 99 EPC is applicable, according to the principles established in decision J 10/07 (OJ EPO 2008, 567).
Document D4 discloses a coaxial coupling (cf. title) comprising a female part ("female portion") 34 (see Figure 2) and a male part ("male portion") 1 (see Figure 1) which are couplable to each other (see Figure 3).
The female part 34 has an inner passage ("inner chamber") 48 and an outer passage ("return flow") 46. The male part 1 also has an inner passage ("high pressure channel") 11 and a concentric outer passage ("forward chamber") 44. As can be seen from Figure 3, the inner passage 48 of the female part 34 is fluidly connected to the inner passage 11 of the male part and the outer passage 46 of the female part 34 is fluidly connected to the outer passage 44 of the male part 1 in the coupled state of the coupling. The male part further comprises a by-pass valve 35 that guides the fluid flow internally from its inner passage 11 to its outer passage 44 (via aperture 12) in a non-coupled state of the coupling (shown in Figure 1). The other part 34 comprises an activator 28 for activating the by-pass valve 35 during coupling of the two parts. The by-pass valve 35 is adapted to guide, at a first stage during coupling of the two parts, the fluid flow from the inner passage of the male part 1 to the outer passages of both parts via apertures 12. The outer passages of both parts are connected together at this stage (page 8, third paragraph). The by-pass valve 35 is also adapted to guide, at a second stage during coupling of the two parts, the fluid flow from the inner passage of the one part to the inner passage of the other part (page 9, first paragraph). Clearly, the first stage occurs prior to the second stage (the disclosure of the second stage is introduced by the words "during continued introduction", see page 8, line 33).
Therefore, the board has reached the conclusion that the subject-matter of claim 1 is not new over the disclosure of document D4.
The board is not persuaded by appellant 2's argument according to which the location of seal 26 is not unambiguously disclosed. The description in respect of Figure 2 states on page 7, lines 19-21: "A sealing piston 18 is maintained in the forward position as shown in fig. 2 by a pressure spring 25. A seal 26 ensures that no leakage occurs between the inner tube sleeve 28 and the sealing piston 18." When this statement is compared with Figure 2 there is no doubt what the reference 26 refers to, because there is only one seal depicted between the inner tube sleeve 28 and the sealing piston 18.
The main request cannot be allowed because it does not comply with the requirements of Article 54(1) EPC 1973.
6. Novelty of auxiliary requests 1 and 2
The amendments on which these requests are based aim at clarifying the claimed subject-matter but do not further distinguish it over the state of the art. The subject-matter of claim 1 having been found to lack novelty (see point 5.15.1 ), these requests have to be rejected for the same reasons.
7.1 Novelty
The novelty of claim hinges on the additional feature according to which, at the first stage, a low pressure valve is activated to allow the outer passages of both parts to be fluidly connected.
Claim 1 uses reference 21 for the low-pressure valve. Figure 5 of the opposed patent shows this element:
A comparison with the coaxial coupling of document D4 shows that sealing ring 24 disclosed in that document plays exactly the same role as the low-pressure valve 21 of Figure 5 of the opposed patent. Document D4 further discloses that "[w]hen the coupling halves ... are connected together the inner and outer tube sleeve ... of the male portion are introduced into the respective inner and outer sleeves ... of the female portion and thereby act on the sealing ring 38 of sealing ring 24 of the outer tube sleeve 5 of the male portion which is pushed into the female portion 34. Even after a few tenths of a millimetre displacement of sealing ring 24 a gap is opened between sealing ring 2' and the inner tube sleeve 28, and a connection is formed between the forward chamber of the male portion for the return flow 44 and the forward chamber of the female portion for the return flow 46." (page 8, lines 18-27). Consequently, there can be no doubt that the sealing ring 24 of document D4 constitutes a low-pressure valve within the meaning of claim 1 that is activated to allow the outer passages of both parts to be fluidly connected.
Therefore, the board has reached the conclusion that the subject-matter of claim 1 is not new within the meaning of Article 54(1) EPC 1973 over the disclosure of document D4.
Auxiliary request 3 cannot be allowed because it does not comply with the requirements of Article 54(1) EPC 1973.
8.1 Admissibility of the amendments
The question before the board is whether the subject-matter of claim 1 is the result of an unallowable "intermediate generalisation" with respect to the teaching of the original application. The core argument of the opposition division was that the passage from page 5, line 18 to page 6, line 10 of the application as filed disclosed three coupling steps A to C and that by inserting only features related to steps A and C and by omitting features related to step B appellant 1 had derived subject-matter that was not directly and unambiguously disclosed in the original application. Moreover, the features related to step B could not be considered to be inessential (and, therefore, omitted, according to the three-step test defined by decision T 331/87) because they were needed to solve the objective problem (preventing pressure build-up during coupling).
The board is of the opinion that when compliance with Article 123(2) EPC is examined, the examination should be carried out in accordance with the "gold standard" reaffirmed in decision G 2/10 of the Enlarged Board of Appeal (OJ EPO 2012, 376) rather than by using tests that may have proven useful for particular cases but which amount to extrapolations the general validity of which is questionable. It should also be noted that the three-step test according to T 331/87 has been found not to be reconcilable with the findings of the Enlarged Board of Appeal in its opinion G 2/98 (OJ EPO 2001, 413); see T 910/03 of 7 July 2005, point 3.5 of the reasons. According to the "gold standard", amendments are possible only "within the limits of what a skilled person would derive directly and unambiguously, using common general knowledge, and seen objectively and relative to the date of filing, from the whole of these documents as filed" (G 2/10, point 4.3 of the reasons). Whether features are "essential" or not is irrelevant in this context.
Thus the question to be answered in the present case is whether the skilled person using his common general knowledge would derive from the disclosure of the original application that the coaxial coupling may contain a by-pass valve adapted to guide the fluid flow from the inner passage of one part to the outer passages of both parts at a first stage A and from the inner passage of one part to the inner passage of the other part during a subsequent stage C, without there necessarily being the intermediate stage B in which the by-pass valve opens the fluid passage to the inner passage of the other part while the outer passages are connected with each other and with the inner passage of the first part.
First it has to be noted that the application discloses one particular set of connectors. When these particular connectors are being coupled, the connecting process necessarily involves stages A, B and C. In other words, the existence of stage B has a structural counterpart in the only disclosed embodiment; there is no way to connect these connectors without having stage B.
In stage A the fluid flows from the inner passage of one part to the outer passages of both parts. In stage C the inner passages are connected to each other only. Therefore, in the intermediate stage the inner passage of the one part has to be disconnected from the outer passages and to be connected to the inner passage of the other part. The particularity of the disclosed intermediate stage B is that the connection to the inner passage of the other part is established before the connection to the outer passages is severed. There is no disclosure whatsoever of the alternative, i.e. of a device in which the connection to the outer passages is shut before the connection to the other inner passage is established.
Appellant 2 has based its reasoning on the distinction of the technical effects of stages A and B. The application states, with respect to stage A: "Since both return passages are connected together and also still connected to the inner pressure passage, no pressure is build-up (sic) in the coupling system" (page 5, lines 26-29; cf. Fig. 5). When stage B is discussed, the application notes: "All passages are connected to each other and again no pressure is build-up (re-sic) in the coupling system." (page 6, lines 2-3; cf. Fig. 6; emphasis by the board). According to appellant 2, the use of "again" expresses that "step B achieves its effect apart from step A, and in addition thereto" (Response to appeal 1, page 6, end of fifth paragraph).
The teaching related to stage A could be distinguished from the teaching related to stage B if the original application directly and unambiguously disclosed intermediate stage B to correspond to the solution of a problem than can be distinguished from the problem solved by the features related to the features involving stages A and C (cf. in this context T 284/94 of 25 November 1998, point 2.1.3 of the reasons). It is doubtful whether this is the case here, because the invention is presented as a solution to the problem of "unwanted pressure build-up" (page 3, first paragraph). If the connectors are designed such that the connection to the outer passages is shut before the connection to the other inner passage is established, then the unwanted pressure build-up will necessarily occur. In other words, the desired outcome is only obtained if there is no pressure build-up in both stages A and B. It is true that stage A in itself avoids pressure build-up during the initial stage of coupling, as argued by appellant 2, but the overall result would not be obtained if the pressure build-up occurred in the intermediate stage.
The intermediate generalisation that has led to claim 1 does not comply with the requirements of Article 123(2) EPC.
Consequently, auxiliary request 4 cannot be allowed.
9. Auxiliary requests 5 and 6
What has been said in respect of the main request (see point 8.18.1 ) also applies to auxiliary requests 5 and 6. The intermediate generalisation that has led to claim 1 does not comply with the requirements of Article 123(2) EPC.
Auxiliary requests 5 and 6 cannot be allowed either.
Document D4 discloses a coaxial coupling comprising a female part 34 (see Figure 2) and a male part 1 (see Figure 1) which are couplable to each other (see Figure 3). The female part 34 and the male part 1 each having an inner passage 48 and 11 and a concentric outer passage 46 and 44, respectively. Figure 3 shows
that the inner passage 48 of the female part 34 is fluidly connected to the inner passage 11 of the male part 1 and the outer passage 46 of the female part 34 is fluidly connected to the outer passage 44 of the male part 1 in the coupled state of the coupling. The male part 1 comprises a by-pass valve 35 that guides the fluid flow internally from its inner passage 11 to its outer passage in a non-coupled state of the coupling (Figure 1). The female part comprises an activator 28 for activating the by-pass valve 35 during coupling of the two parts. The by-pass valve 35 is adapted to guide, at a first stage during coupling of the two parts, the fluid flow from the inner passage of the male part 1 to the outer passages of both parts via apertures 12. The outer passages of both parts are connected together at this stage (page 8, third paragraph). The by-pass valve 35 is also adapted to guide, at a second and last stage during coupling of the two parts, the fluid flow from the inner passage of the one part to the inner passage of the other part (see page 8, line 33). Clearly, the first stage occurs prior to the second stage. At the first stage, the male part is partially inserted into the other part (page 8, lines 18 et seq.) and at the second stage (Figure 3), the two parts are fully coupled. There is also an intermediate stage in which the by-pass valve 35 opens the fluid passage to the inner passage of the other part via apertures 3, while the outer passages are connected with each other - through the gap between sealing ring 24 and inner tube sleeve 28 (page 8, lines 24-27) - and with the inner passage of the one part via apertures (until the apertures 12 are covered by the slide ring 4: page 9, lines 9-14), so that all passages are connected to each other.
Auxiliary request 7 cannot be allowed because it does not comply with the requirements of Article 54(1) EPC 1973.