Updates on EPC, PCT, EPO case law and the e-EQE

In its refusal decision the ED found that the subject-matter of claim 1 of the sole request before it was not new in view of a sole piece of prior art, D1.

In an obiter dictum the Examining Division further pointed out that the subject-matter of claim 1 represented an unallowable intermediate generalisation of the content of the application as originally filed.

The outline of the case

The opponent filed the notice of appeal electronically, within the required time limit.

The notice of appeal was received with an accompanying letter, Form 1038. This form is generated automatically (among other things) as part of the online fee payment when a debit order is issued to the EPO,

The applicant appealed the refusal and requested that OP to be held by ViCo.

In a letter received on 01.04.2022 the applicant/appellant referred to the Covid-19 infection rates in the United Kingdom and in Munich and requested that the OP be held as a ViCo.

In a communication dated 11.04.2022 the board noted that there seemed to no longer be any official limitations or impairments affecting the appellant’s ability to attend oral proceedings in person.

The proprietor appealed the decision to revoke its patent.

Brief outline of the situation

The MR filed in opposition and maintained in appeal, now AR 1, contained claims 1 and 6 as independent claims.

In the new MR, claim 1 and its dependent claims 2 to 6 as well as claims 11 and 12 have been deleted.

The patent was maintained in amended form by the OD. The proprietor appealed the decision.

For the OD, claim 1 as granted lacked inventive step over specific documents submitted by the opponent.

The proprietor claimed that his right to be heard has been violated on two occurrences:

– he could not dispute the common general knowledge used by the opposition division;