Key points
- In this appeal against a refusal, the Board reviews the rejection by the Examining Division based on the requirement of "support" of Article 84.
- "The board notes that Article 84 EPC requires, amongst other things, that the claims indicate all the essential features of the invention. Any features that are necessary in order to obtain the desired effect or, in other words, that are necessary in order to solve the technical problem with which the application is concerned are to be considered essential features (see decision T 32/82). In the present case, the problem solved by the application concerns providing "alternative communication paths [having] no single point of failure" (see page 5, lines 10-12)."
- Examining the claim at issue: "In view of the above, the board holds that the [three] features identified in the impugned decision as allegedly being missing are either not essential or are already reflected in the wording of claim 1, which thus fulfills the requirements of Article 84 EPC."
- The case is remitted. "The board notes that the examining division decided on the issues of added subject-matter (Articles 76(1) and 123(2) EPC) and lack of support/lack of clarity (Article 84 EPC). Novelty and inventive step were not assessed in the impugned decision.
- Under these circumstances, the board does not consider it appropriate to decide on the issues of novelty and inventive step without a decision of the examining division. Thus, the board holds that special reasons exist for remitting the case to the department of first instance."
EPO T 1327/19 -
The link to the decision is provided after the jump, as well as (an extract of) the text of the decision.
source http://justpatentlaw.blogspot.com/2022/03/t-132719-support-under-art-84.html
