本案訴願議題有：
(1)新增專利標的（added subject matter）
(2)揭露不足（insufficiency of disclosure）
(3)進步性不足（lack of inventive step）
案件資訊：
訴願號：T 0598/ 16
歐洲專利申請號：10180160.3
歐洲專利公開號：2296454
專利權人：NeoGraf Solutions, LLC
異議人：SGL Carbon SE
相關法條：EPC 1973 Art. 54, 56, 76(1), 100(a)、EPC Art. 123(2)
議題之一為系爭專利在異議程序中產生「interlocutory decision」，也就是申請人在異議程序中提出修正產生了「added subject matter」的議題，加上揭露不足與缺乏進步性等議題。根據Article 101(3)(a)EPC規定，在異議程序（opposition）中，當申請人為了維持專利權而提出修正時，需要符合相關規定，異議人對此議題提出訴願。
列舉系爭專利有爭議的Claims 1, 4, 9-10，如下，關於Claim 1界定的熱管理系統，訴願委員會加入(a)~(e)來方面說明。
1. A thermal management system (10) comprising a heat source having an external surface (100a) and a thermal interface (20) comprising:
(a) an anisotropic flexible graphite sheet formed of compressed particles of exfoliated natural graphite and
(b) having a planar area greater than the area of the external surface of the heat source,
the flexible graphite sheet
(c) having first and second major planar surfaces and
(d) having axes of higher thermal conductivity parallel to said major planar surfaces,
characterized by
(e) a first one of said major planar surfaces being in direct operative contact with the heat source.
4. A thermal management system (10) according to any one of claims 1 to 3 wherein the ratio of thermal conductivity of the anisotropic graphite sheet parallel to one to the major surfaces as compared to transverse to the major surface is at least about 20.
9. A thermal management system (10) according to any one of claims 1 to 7 further comprising a heat sink (30) which comprises a graphite article shaped so as to provide a heat collection surface and at least one heat dissipation surface, the heat collection surface of the heat sink being in operative contact with a second one of the said major planar surfaces of the flexible graphite sheet.
10. A thermal management system (10) according to claim 9 wherein the graphite article comprises anisotropic flexible sheets of compressed particles of exfoliated graphite laminated into a unitary article.
訴願決定：
對於異議程序中的修正，引起程序中的法律議題，訴願人（原異議人）主張這些專利範圍已經超出原申請時說明書範圍，如以上引述Claim 1的步驟(d)與(e)，Claim 4的"about 20"，Claim 9的"graphite article"、"in operative contact with..."等，以及Claim 10的"anisotropic flexible sheets..."。
（重要，這裡可以"稍微"理解歐洲訴願委員會對是否超出的"寬容度"）
歐洲專利訴願委員會的決定是，修正為「從申請時說明書中內容所顯露出的（emerge）」；並且同意說明書描述的結構「暗示（imply）」了其中石墨片的物理特性；訴願委員會認為本案修正可以從申請時說明書「直接也明確地而推論（derivable）得出」；訴願委員會同意請求項9中的用語"in operative contact with"的連接關係「類似的揭露（similar disclosure）」於原說明書（包括母案）中；以及，特別的是，訴願委員會也會考量相關領域對於一些元件的一般理解，而給予"合理而寬容"的解釋空間。
對於Claim 4描述的"...at least about 20"，訴願委員特別地提出，不論說明書有沒有這句話，但原申請時Claim 6有一樣的描述，因此Claim 4沒有增加新特徵，可以直接而明確地從原申請時說明書所推論，且如說明書段落0020，已經有相當的描述："[0020] With respect to thermal properties, the thermal conductivity of a flexible graphite sheet in a direction parallel to the upper and lower surfaces of the flexible graphite sheet is relatively high, while it is relatively very low in the "c" direction transverse to the upper and lower surfaces, by a ratio that can approach 20 to one or higher."。
Claims 9-10也有類似的判斷原則。
可知，判斷是否有不合規定的added subject matter，還可以依據其他「請求項原本的描述」，以及申請時說明書，甚至還考量了更早的「母案」。
另外提出其中一個有趣的議題：「系爭專利是否僅是解決相關技術問題的另一替代方案（merely provide an alternative thermal management system）」而已？
訴願決定是，系爭專利解決了相關熱管理系統的效率，並解決技術問題而達成特定技術效果，不認為僅是解決相關問題的另一替代方案而已！
其餘新穎性與進步性議題不在此贅述。
最終撤銷訴願意見，也就是原專利權人勝訴。
my two cents:
從本篇訴願決定可知（仍需要其他案件相互印證），歐洲審查時，對於added subject matter的認定仍是十分有彈性，不如印象中的嚴格。
[涉及法條]
Article 101 EPC
Examination of the opposition – Revocation or maintenance of the European patent
(1) If the opposition is admissible, the Opposition Division shall examine, in accordance with the Implementing Regulations, whether at least one ground for opposition under Article 100 prejudices the maintenance of the European patent. During this examination, the Opposition Division shall invite the parties, as often as necessary, to file observations on communications from another party or issued by itself.
(2) If the Opposition Division is of the opinion that at least one ground for opposition prejudices the maintenance of the European patent, it shall revoke the patent. Otherwise, it shall reject the opposition.
(3) If the Opposition Division is of the opinion that, taking into consideration the amendments made by the proprietor of the European patent during the opposition proceedings, the patent and the invention to which it relates
(a) meet the requirements of this Convention, it shall decide to maintain the patent as amended, provided that the conditions laid down in the Implementing Regulations are fulfilled;
(b) do not meet the requirements of this Convention, it shall revoke the patent.
訴願決定：
https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t160598eu1.pdf（備份：https://app.box.com/s/4k8prrdh5vkx4yzlvge4rvyy7q65ohn8）
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言