Information
Diese Seite ist nur auf Englisch verfügbar.
Selected decisions
The list of “Selected decisions” alerts users to all newly published decisions for which a headnote or a catchword has been provided by the board. Usually, a board will add a headnote or catchword if it wishes to provide a brief summary of a particular point of law or to draw attention to an important part of the reasons for the decision. The list contains all decisions with a headnote or catchword published in the last three years and can be viewed by year by selecting the year from the menu on the left.
The list below contains all decisions with a headnote or catchword that have been released for publication in the last six months (newest first).
November 2023
Priorität - dieselbe Erfindung (nein)
Priorität - Teilpriorität (ja)
Verspätet geltend gemachte Veröffentlichung im Prioritätsintervall - Zulassung (nein)
Claim interpretation in the context of the description (yes)
Grounds for opposition - added subject-matter (no)
Remittal - (yes)
Remittal - special reasons for remittal
Any reasons as to why an amendment to a party's appeal case overcomes an objection which is not part of the decision under appeal or of the appeal proceedings do not constitute valid reasons for admitting the amendment in view of Article
12(4) RPBA, second paragraph.
Statement of grounds of appeal - reasons set out clearly and concisely (yes)
Inventive step - (no)
Amendment to case - amendment admitted (no)
Rückzahlung der Beschwerdegebühr - wesentlicher Verfahrensmangel (nein)
Hauptantrag, Hilfsanträge 1, 3 und 4: Neuheit - (nein)
Hilfsantrag 2: Spät eingereichter Antrag - im erstinstanzlichen Verfahren nicht zugelassen (ja)
Hilfsanträge 11 und 35: Spät eingereichter Antrag - im erstinstanzlichen Verfahren nicht mehr aufrechterhalten (ja)
Hilfsanträge 11 und 35: Änderung des Beschwerdevorbringens - Ermessensausübung
Ermittlung von Amts wegen - Einspruchsverfahren
Decision issued in written proceedings (yes)
Novelty (yes)
Inventive step (yes)
Admittance of novelty and inventive step attacks filed first on appeal (no)
Since Article 56 EPC and the final stage of the problem-solution approach both consider what is obvious to a person skilled in the art, an inventive step cannot be acknowledged solely on the finding that the claimed subject-matter is not directly and unambiguously disclosed from the combination of two documents.
In other words, when considering the question of whether an invention is obvious starting from a document representing the closest prior art in combination with another document, it is not the mere sum of the teachings of these two documents that has to be considered; the skilled person's common general knowledge and skills must also be taken into account when combining the two documents.
Grounds for opposition - subject-matter extends beyond content of earlier application (yes)
Late-filed request - admitted (no)
Amendments - extension beyond the content of the application as filed (yes)
Inventive step - (no)
Inventive step - obvious combination of known features