Home » Patents » EPO Guidelines – November 2016 Update

EPO Guidelines – November 2016 Update

Keltie LLP

K2 IP Limited

About IPcopy

IPcopy is an intellectual property related news site covering a wide variety of IP related news and issues. We will also take the odd lighthearted look at IP. Feel free to contact us via the details on the About Us page.

Disclaimer: Unless stated otherwise, the contributors to IPcopy (the "IPcopy writers") are patent and trade mark attorneys or patent and trade mark assistants at Keltie LLP or are network attorneys at K2 IP Limited. Guest contributors will be identified.

This news site is the personal site of the contributors and is not edited by the authors' employer in any way. From time to time however IPcopy may publish practice notes, legal updates and marketing news from Keltie LLP or K2 IP Limited. Any such posts will be clearly marked.

This news site is for information purposes only. Information posted to this news site is not legal advice and should not be taken as such. If you require IP related legal advice please contact your legal representative.

For the avoidance of doubt Keltie LLP and K2 IP Limited have no liability as to the content of IPcopy and any related tweets or social media posts.

Privacy Policy

IPcopy’s Privacy Policy can be viewed here.

epologoA new version of the EPO Guidelines for Examination will come into effect on 1 November 2016 and is already available on the EPO website. We’ve taken a quick peek through the changes (which can be displayed by toggling the “show modifications” button in the upper right portion of the screen) and discuss some of the updates below.

Patent attorneys who work on cases concerning computer-implemented inventions will be interested in the new sections added to Part G which provide a number of examples of applying the problem-solution approach to these types of invention.

General Part – the opening section now includes a link to Chapter X: Impartiality of the Examining or Opposition Division which explains the procedure to be followed in the event of some impartiality. Basically, raise such challenges as soon as possible. If the challenge is upheld then oral proceedings will be adjourned or, if still in the written phase, the concerned members will be replaced.

Part A (Formalities Exam)

Part B (Search)

  • B-II, 1.1 – Contact between the applicant and the Search Division is a new section that relates to discussions with the Examiner (Note: the contents of this section previously appeared in the November 2015 Guidelines at B-XI, 8). Unless the query relates to a reply to rule 61(1) [incomplete search], rule 62a [more than one independent claim per category] or issues relating to timing of the drawing up of the search report it will not be possible to informally discuss cases with the Examiner until the application enters the exam phase.  IPcopy has always regarded this section as disappointing. The extended European search report (EESR) including the search opinion is effectively “Exam Round 1” and it is unfortunate that applicants cannot raise queries or discuss potential amendment/argument options with the Examiner until they’ve filed a response to the EESR and pushed the case into the exam phase.

Part D (Opposition and Limitation/Revocation Procedures)

Part E (General Procedural Matters)

  • E-II, 8.7.1 – General principles – this section has been amended in light of a new version of rule 82. Parties are encouraged to file documents that are compliant with rule 49(8) but may choose to submit formally compliant versions within a time limit that will be specified by the EPO.  The procedure to be followed in opposition proceedings is now part of new section E-II, 8.7.3.

Part F (The European Patent Application)

  • F-IV, 3.9 – Computer Implemented Inventions (CII) – this is a new section relating to claims that cover computer related inventions. Two further sections F-IV, 3.9.1 and F-IV, 3.9.2 follow which distinguish between inventions in which all the steps can be carried out on a computing device and inventions which involve a mixture of computer and other technical devices. Examples claim formulations are provided for both scenarios.

Part G (Patentability)

  • G-VII, 5.4.2 – Problem-solution approach – there are five new sections here comprising an introduction and four examples of how to use the problem-solution approach with claims that comprise technical and non-technical features. This section is a must read for anyone who works with computer-implemented inventions. The four examples are apparently all adapted from caselaw.
  • Example 1 ( relates to a claim that is directed towards a method of shopping on a mobile device. This example is shown to be lacking an inventive step.
  • Example 2 ( relates to a computer-implemented method for brokering offers and demands in the field of freight transportation. This example is shown to be lacking an inventive step.
  • Example 3 ( relates to a system for the transmission of a broadcast media channel to a remote client over a data connection. This example is shown to be lacking an inventive step.
  • Example 4 ( relates to a methof for the numerical simulation of an electronic circuit. This example is shown to comprise an inventive step.

A full list of the amended sections in the November 2016 Guidelines can be found here.

Mark Richardson 25 October 2016

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: