An EPO board held that observations filed by third parties during inter partes appeal must be disregarded by the board, unless they concern amendments during opposition or appeal, in which case the board has discretion whether or not to consider the observations in the examination of the amendments. Also when a party to the appeal…
The Board of Appeal held that “Biogen insufficiency”, the situation in which the full extent of the monopoly claimed exceeds the technical contribution to the art, is not a distinct ground for invalidity from “classical insufficiency”. Further, the fact that a skilled person is not able to carry out the invention without using the disclosed…
In a decision to refund an additional search fee, an EPO board rejected a determination of non-unity based on a priori technical differences, which determined different problems solved by different dependent claims without determining patentability with respect to the available prior art found for the independent claim. Instead, lack of unity should be decided based…
An EPO board considered the burden of proof of public prior use when the invention had been publicly visible only for a short period of time. The Board required proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a claim feature could be directly and unambiguously derived from the public availability in the time interval. The opponent failed…
A board of appeal of the European Patent Office held that a conditional request for oral proceedings filed with a notice of opposition remains effective after appeal and remittal to the opposition division, even when the party fails to restate the request in response to an invitation for requests by the opposition division after the remittal….
In an appeal from an opposition decision that maintained the patent, an EPO board refused to admit an auxiliary request that had been filed by the proprietor during opposition and formally re-entered with the initial response to the grounds of appeal. Other than implicitly through arguments about the main request, the response failed to take…
The enlarged board of appeal of the European patent office allowed a petition for review of a board decision because the right to be heard had been denied. The decisive ground for the decision under review involved a new conclusion from a document that was in the proceedings. This conclusion could not be directly derived…
An EPO board held that an appellant in a cross-appeal can be bound by an analogy of the bar against reformatio in peius, when filing a request later than with the grounds of appeal. When the appellant could have filed the request with the grounds of appeal, but filed the request only in response to…
The board refused to apply Rule 56 EPC (filing missing drawings) to allow replacement of a poor quality drawing in a patent application by a drawing from the priority document. Although J2/12 had allowed replacement under Rule 56 in the case that it could be established that wrong drawings were filed, this applied only to…
An EPO board held that observations filed by third parties during inter parte appeal must be disregarded by the board, unless they concern amendments during opposition or appeal, in which case the board had discretion whether or not to consider the observations in the examination of the amendments. Also when a party to the appeal…
