Key points
- This is an appeal against a refusal decision.
- “Point 1.1 of the impugned decision states: "Claims 1 and 5 relate to a method for mapping a body organ. This is presentation of information as such that falls under the exclusion from patentability (Article 52(2)(d) and (3) EPC)."” That's all for Art. 52 in the appealed decision.
- “The board finds that the objection raised in point 1.1 lacks reasoning. The first sentence therein paraphrases the first line of claims 1 and 5 (in the version filed by the appellant with the statement setting out the grounds of appeal). The second sentence therein ends by expressing the fact that presentation of information as such falls under the exclusion from patentability. The only part linking the claimed subject-matter and this exclusion is the statement "This is". However, simply stating that the claimed subject-matter is a presentation of information as such is a legal conclusion that is not supported by any reasoning.” Moreover, the issue is not trivial because the step " step of "displaying (106) the 3D map" of the claim may imply technical means.
- This is a substantial procedural violation.
- The novelty objection involved also a substantial procedural violation: “the objection of lack of novelty as raised in the impugned decision referred to passages of document D2 which were clearly different to the passages referred to in the corresponding objection raised in the communication annexed to the summons”, further in view of the minutes of the oral proceedings.
- The case is remitted and the appeal fee is reimbursed.
T 0519/21 -
Reasons for the Decision
1. The appeal is admissible.
2. Main request - objection under Article 52(2)(d) and (3) EPC
2.1 Rule 111(2) EPC provides that appealable decisions are to be reasoned. It is established case law that inadequate reasoning constitutes a substantial procedural violation (see Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office, 9th edition 2019 ("Case Law"), V.A.9.5.9).
2.2 Point 1.1 of the impugned decision states: "Claims 1 and 5 relate to a method for mapping a body organ. This is presentation of information as such that falls under the exclusion from patentability (Article 52(2)(d) and (3) EPC)."
No further statements in respect of this objection are made.
source http://justpatentlaw.blogspot.com/2021/12/t-051921-conclusory-and-insufficient.html
