Key points
- The Board, on the admissibility of documents filed by the proprietor/appellant (namely, experimental reports): (untranslated) "Die diesbezüglichen Argumente der Beschwerdegegnerin betreffen eher die Frage, ob der Vortrag der Beschwerdeführerin überzeugend ist oder nicht, als die Frage der Zulassung. Die tatsächliche Offensichtlichkeit des angeblichen Fehlers und dessen Berichtigung sowie die wiederholten Fehler in den Angaben der Beschwerdeführerin im erstinstanzlichen Verfahren sind für die Frage der Zulassung der Eingabe der Beschwerdeführerin gemäß Artikel 13 (1) und 13 (2) VOBK 2020 nicht relevant."
- "Die Kammer ist daher der Auffassung, dass der Fachmann tatsächlich die Wasserangabe in D25 als einen offensichtlichen Fehler, dessen Berichtigung ebenfalls offensichtlich sei, betrachten würde."
- So, obvious errors in the experimental report D25 were no factor in the admissibility of the experimental report under Art. 13(1) RPBA.
- The patent is about a cosmetic formulation with cellulose particles having a certain size, wherein the particles are derived from vegetable cellulose.
- On the credibility of the technical effect: (in translation) "The respondent [opponent] also argued during the oral hearing that the granted claim 1 was broadly worded. In particular, particles of different sizes and cellulose from a very wide variety of sources are claimed. Any woody plant would actually be suitable as a source according to claim 1. In contrast to this variety of claimed particles, only one type of particle was tested in D25, namely "Ultrafine Cellulose Arbocel M8". A single example is therefore not sufficient to make the alleged effect credible for the entire breadth of claim 1".
- "[The proprietor] replied that bacterial, fermentatively produced celluloses such as those from Example 2 of D11 would have a fibrillar ... structure. The fibrils would then form MCC-like networks. In contrast, native celluloses obtained from plant fibers would have a cross-linked structure. Thus, the claimed celluloses would have a uniform structure that would distinguish them from bacterial celluloses and MCC."
- The Board considers the technical effect credible over the whole scope of the claim.
- The Board also considers the subject matter inventive. "The objective technical task based on D11 is accordingly to provide another cosmetic formulation containing glycerin and cellulose with improved sensory properties when distributed on the skin"
- "None of the documents D1, D3, D7, D14 or D19 cited by the respondent indicate replacing the cellulose component from D11 with native cellulose obtained from plant fibers in order to improve the sensory properties when distributed on the skin. The respondent did not raise any argument regarding evidence of such an improvement in the prior art. "
- The Board formualtes the objective technical problem as: "Die objektive technische Aufgabe ausgehend von D11 besteht dementsprechend in der Bereitstellung einer weiteren Glycerin- und Cellulose-haltigen kosmetischen Formulierung mit verbesserter Sensorik beim Verteilen auf der Haut."
- I find this a bit curious because the provision of alternatives is usually used as the objective technical problem if there is no improvement. However, I've not studied the decision in great detail on this point.
- EPO
The link to the decision is provided after the jump, as well as (an extract of) the decision text.
source http://justpatentlaw.blogspot.com/2023/12/t-132921-errors-and-admissibility.html
