epi-Information 2/2012

Information2 12G 10904 F | ISSN 1434-8853 | Art.-Nr. 56356202 | Juni 2012Institut der beim EuropäischenPatentamt zugelassenen VertreterInstitute of Professional Representativesbefore the European Patent OfficeInstitut des mandataires agréés prèsl’Office européen des brevetsI – Information concerning epi31 Committee reports38 Training for the EQE pre-examination 201339 CEIPI preparation Courses41 epi meeting roomII – Contributions from epi Members and other contributions42 FICPI World Congress, Melbourne by T. Johnson43 Statistics, their use and abuse, and the EQE by J. Boff44 Rule 137 (5) EPC – An Irresistible Temptation?by Y. Robin and P. Chapman, T. Hargreaves (Co-authors)49 Der Fachmann: die notwendige Fiktion im System by T. Fox

Information 2/2012 Table of Contents 29Table of ContentsEditorial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30I – Information concerning epiCommittee ReportsReport of the Disciplinary Committee . . . . . . . 31Report of the EPPC to the epi Council. . . . . . . 32Report of the Harmonisation Committee . . . . . 33Report of the Litigation Committee . . . . . . . . 33Biotech Committee – Minutes of EPO/epi Meeting held on 10 November 2011 . . . . . 35Education and TrainingMock EQEs 2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37Training for the EQE pre-examination 2013,by A. Zellner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38Seminars introducing the EQE to potentialcandidates, by A. Zellner . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38Take a look at the EQE Forum, by A. Zellner. . . . 38Tutors wanted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3910th CEIPI epi Course on Patent Litigationin Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39CEIPI preparation courses for the EQEpre-examination and main examination 2013 . . . 39Information from the SecretariatNext Board and Council Meetings . . . . . . . . . 40News from epi Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41epi meeting room for epi members . . . . . . . . 41Deadline 3/2012. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30Contact Data of Legal Division. . . . . . . . . . . 42Dates of forthcoming issues of epi Information . . 37epi Disciplinary bodies and Committees . . . . . . 53epi Board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . U3II – Contributions from epi Members and othercontributionsArticlesFICPI World Congress and Executive CommitteeMeeting, Melbourne, 15-21 April 2012,by T. Johnson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42Statistics, their use and abuse, and the EQE,by J. Boff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43Rule 137(5) EPC – An Irresistible Temptation?by Y. Robin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44Die Erfinderische Tätigkeit (inventive step etc.)ist wissenschaftlich erledigt, by Dr. A. W. Kumm . . 47Der Fachmann: die notwendige Fiktion im System,by T. Fox . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49European Inventor Award, Press Release, EPO . . . 52

30 Editorial Information 2/2012EditorialT. Johnson (GB)The Greek philosopher Heraclitus proposed the doctrineof change being central to the Universe, summed up bythe expression, “change is the only constant”. Thisdictum can be applied to many areas, not the least theEPO where several changes have taken place recently.This year for example, the Office is publishing its annualreport online, a boon for users. The report shows thatdespite the economic crisis, patent applications reached244 000 in 2011, an increase of 3.7%. That year too,62115 EPs were granted, a 7% increase over 2010.In addition, the EPO and Logica have signed an agreementwhich is aimed at helping the Office establish amanagement system for digitally processing patentapplications. This is intended to cover all stages of anapplication's life up to grant, and also to manageoppositions and appeals. The system is due to be rolledout gradually from April 2013 with full implementationduring 2015.Another change was the joint launch with Googleearlier this year of Patent Translate, which could simplifythe patent system, including the unitary patent when (?)it comes into force.Yet another EPO agreement was the one signed inFebruary this year with the JPO whereby Japanese documentationwill be supplied for use in the EPO machinetranslation project.These are just some of the changes taking place andwe believe support Heraclitus' doctrine, which does notinclude the idea of “change for change's sake”. Theprojects we have mentioned are, we believe, innovativeand to be encouraged as they should improve the EPOsystem for all who are involved in it, including applicants.Our Institute being part of the European Patent Organisationwill be following these changes with constructiveinterest.Lest it be thought that our Institute is not changing wecan give one example of a change which is aimed toprovide improved access to the Institute for all ourmembership and other interested parties. This changeis for a radical re-design of the Institute's website, whichis an exciting project which if realised will benefit all theusers of the system too, or so we on the EditorialCommittee believe.Heraclitus lives on!Nächster Redaktionsschlussfür epi InformationInformieren Sie bitte den Redaktionsausschussso früh wie möglich überdas Thema, das Sie veröffentlichenmöchten. Redaktionsschluss für dienächste Ausgabe der epi Informationist der 10. August 2012. Die Dokumente,die veröffentlicht werdensollen, müssen bis zu diesem Datumim Sekretariat eingegangen sein.Next deadline forepi InformationPlease inform the Editorial Committeeas soon as possible about thesubject you want to publish. Deadlinefor the next issue of epiInformation is 10 th August 2012.Documents for publication shouldhave reached the Secretariat by thisdate.Prochaine date limite pourepi InformationVeuillez informer la Commission derédaction le plus tôt possible du sujetque vous souhaitez publier. La datelimite de remise des documents pourle prochain numéro de epiInformation est le 10 août 2012.Les textes destinés à la publicationdevront être reçus par le Secrétariatavant cette date.

Information 2/2012 Committee Reports 31Report of the Disciplinary CommitteeP. Rosenich (LI), Chair of Disciplinary Committee1. Disciplinary Case CD 5/10 (San Marino)At the last Council the Chairman of epi DisciplinaryCommittee was asked about a Complaint which wasfiled with and decided by a Chamber of the DisciplinaryCommittee regarding the surprising high number ofGrandfathers entering the epi-Member-List when SanMarion acceded.Without going into details it can be stated that theChamber Westerholm decided in their decision CD 5/10to hand over this case to the Disciplinary Board. Sincethen the case is pending before the Disciplinary Board(the second half of the first instance in disciplinarymatters).2. Procedure when matters are sent to theDisciplinary Committee „just for information“by an epi Member.The Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee decided tonot hand over a letter containing information with somerelevance to disciplinary Questions to a Chamber unlesssaid epi Member sends a detailed complaint.The situation was this:A first European Patent Attorney filed a claim “Strafanzeige”against another European Patent Attorneywith a local executive body.The first European Attorney sent a plain copy of saidclaim to the epi Disciplinary Committee. No requestregarding disciplinary proceedings was attached andno reasoning with regard to epi's Code of Conductwas provided. The Chairman of the Disciplinary Committeedecided not to hand over the copy to a DisciplinaryChamber but to ask in writing if said first Attorneyrequested disciplinary proceedings.The reason for this decision was:a) Local executive bodies like Police or Courts havebetter investigative powers than the Disciplinary Committee.From this follows that said bodies may easierinvestigate what really happened. When the facts of thecase are then available, the Disciplinary Committee caneventually use these facts in later disciplinary procedures.For that reason it does not make much sense to keepdisciplinary proceedings running in parallel to Police orCourt actions/proceedings.b) Said claim did not contain a reference to the Code ofConduct and to a concrete disciplinary misbehavior ofthe Defendant. For that reason it was not prima facieobvious in which way the defending Attorney actedagainst the epi Code of Conduct.c) If an epi Member (European Patent Attorney) files arequest for disciplinary proceedings against another epiMember it is expected that the complaining Membershould provide a detailed and substantiated requestbased on the provisions of the Code of Conduct.3. Request for Court-experts from epi (DC)An epi attorney asked NOT for a Decision by a DC-Chamber BUT for an advice and an Expert for a Courthearing in a Civil Court Action against another epiMember. The Chairman of DC decided that such advicecould not be given from DC and proposed that theattorney contact the Professional Conduct Committee.Its Chairman gave some advice related to proper e-mailcorrespondence between epi Members and clients. ThePresident agreed that epi Experts could present epi practicein Court hearings within the frame defined by theChairman of the Professional Conduct Committee. TwoMembers of DC volunteered to act as Experts. Therequesting epi Attorney received the names of theseExperts and thanked the epi for its help. It seems that atthis stage of proceedings the Experts will not be invokedin the Court hearing.4. DC-Meeting 10th-11th June in AthensThe main topic will be: Mediation Training for the (new)Members of DC.Also a proposal of Edward Lyndon-Stanford will bediscussed regarding a possibility to publish cases if thedefendant is frequently found guilty in breaching theCode of Conduct.5. Cyprus has not yet nominated a member for DC.The Chairman found and proposed a Memberfrom another Country who was willing to workin DC on the CY-seat.The CY-Council Member promised alternatively to try afinal time to find a member from Cyprus. The SecretaryGeneral and the Chairman agreed to this procedure.6. French Chamber Debled lost it's Rapporteur dueto professional work overload. The Chairmanasked successfully for a substitute Member fromanother Chamber to fill the gap.I – Information concerning epi

32 Committee Reports Information 2/2012Report of the EPPC to the epi CouncilF. Leyder (BE), Chair of EPPCThis report completed on 09.05.2012 covers the periodsince my previous report dated 10.02.2012. There is littleto be added.The EPPC is the largest committee of the epi, but alsothe one with the broadest remit: it has to consider anddiscuss all questions pertaining to, or connected with,practice under (1) the EPC, (2) the PCT, and (3) the futureEU Patent Regulation, including any revision thereof,except all questions in the fields of other committees:Biotech, OCC, PDC, LitCom, and EPO Finances.The EPPC is presently organised with seven permanentsub-committees (EPC, Guidelines, MSBA, EPO-epiLiaison, PCT, Trilateral & IP5, and Unitary Patent).Additionally, ad hoc working groups are set up whenthe need arises.DG31. Meeting with VP3A delegation of Presidium and EPPC members metMr van der Eijk, new Vice-President DG3 and Chairmanof the Enlarged Board of Appeal since 01.12.2011.UNITARY PATENT2. European patent with unitary effect in the participatingMember StatesNo new document has been posted on the website ofthe Council (http://register.consilium.europa.eu/).On the website of the Parliament (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/), both procedures are still flagged“Awaiting Parliament 1st reading/single reading/budget1 st stage”, but with an indicative date that has now beenpostponed sine die.PCT3. PCT Working GroupThe 5 th session of the PCT Working Group is summonedfor the week from 29 May to 1 June 2012 in Geneva,Switzerland (where Monday 28 May is a holiday). Theworking documents will timely be posted on the WIPOwebsite: http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=25017By the time this report will be published, a 'Summaryby the Chair' should also be available.In terms of future developments of the PCT system, Ican mention a proposal to allow the Written Opinion bythe ISA to be available as of the date of internationalpublication (or even included in the international publicationof the application), a proposal to conduct atop-up search in the international phase and to providefor an accelerated international search and examination,a proposed interim arrangement for filing of color drawingsat offices that do not accept color drawings, and aproposal to distinguish in the ISR the documents that aredestroying inventive step when taken alone from documentsthat destroy inventive step when combined withother documents.EPC4. 41 st CPL meetingAt the 41 st meeting of the Committee on Patent Law, theEPO submitted a proposal to amend Rule 53(3) EPC,pretty much in the line with the proposal posted on15.12.2011 on the EPO website for public consultation,despite the objections raised by epi at the 6 th SACEPO/WPR meeting. We submitted further comments. Theproposal is now intended to be submitted to the AdministrativeCouncil at its June meeting.Information aboutepi membership and membership subscriptionorRules governing payment of the epi annual membership feeis available on the epi website www.patentepi.com

Information 2/2012 Committee Reports 33Report of the Harmonisation CommitteeF. Leyder (BE), Secretary of Harmonisation CommitteeThis report covers the period since my previous reportdated 12.02.2012.The Harmonisation Committee deals with all questionsconcerning the worldwide harmonization of PatentLaw, and in particular within the framework of WIPO.1. AIPLA-epi meetingOn 8 March 2012, a delegation of AIPLA met a delegationof the epi. Less than two weeks before themeeting, the President invited the members of the committeewho had attended the “Hearing of EuropeanUsers on the Implementation of the 'America InventsAct' 2011 in Light of Harmonization Issues” on 16 thFebruary 2012 to join the epi delegation, as that Act was(of course) on the agenda.The meeting was planned for two hours, with presentationsby both delegations. In a nutshell, we understoodthat AIPLA expressed that it is time to startnegotiating.2. Committee meeting – Hearing at the EPOAs reported previously, Mr Lutz, Vice-President DG5,issued an invitation to a “Hearing of European Userson the Implementation of the 'America Invents Act'2011 in Light of Harmonization Issues” on 16 th February2012.An invitation was sent on 25 th January 2012 to thecommittee members to join the epi delegation. The epidelegation comprised our President and both Vice-Presidents,four committee members, and a former committeemember. The delegation met in the morning toprepare the afternoon hearing.During the hearing, epi reaffirmed its opposition toany kind of grace period in the very interest of theinventors. It was interesting to note that BusinessEurope,to the contrary, appeared to support the idea of a graceperiod. There seemed to be a consensus that rulemakingcould not change the fundamental issues that Europeanusers appear to have with the AIA.Incidentally, we understood that the EPO would welcomeany comments on derivation that the Europeanusers might wish to make.3. 41 st CPLThe EPO reported on the fact finding exercise carried outby the “Tegernsee Experts' Group” (see previous report).A further “Tegernsee Meeting” is planned after thesummer.4. Standing Committee on the Law of Patents(SCP)At the 18 th Session of the SCP (21 st to 25 th May 2012),John Brown and Francis Leyder represented epi. TheSCP/18 working documents are available from the WIPOwebsite: http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=25016At the time of writing this report, no progress hadbeen made, and none could be foreseen.By the time this report will be published, a 'Summary bythe Chair' should be available.Report of the Litigation CommitteeA. Casalonga (FR), Chair of Litigation CommitteeThe Litigation Committee prepared comments on thedraft Rules of Procedure (RoP) for the new UPC. Thecomments were based on the eighth draft of the RoPdated March 30, 2012.A position paper based on these comments was sent,after approval by the Presidium, to the Working Groupon the future Rules of Procedure as well as to the EUCommission.The position paper contains general remarks andspecific comments on the draft Rules themselves.Below are the general remarks.1. Litigation costThe epi considers essential that the overall costs of theprocedure before the court be reasonable.

34 Committee Reports Information 2/2012Therefore, the Rules of procedure should be draftedwith the final aim of reaching a cost level approximatelysimilar to the overall costs of Court Litigation in ContinentalEurope for example in France or Germany.This aim is not only important in principle but also inview of the fact that parties will have the choice betweenthe UPC and National Courts during a relatively longtransitional period.2. Litigation durationThe epi also considers that the overall duration of theCourt procedure should be reasonable. It is importantnot only for both parties, plaintiff as well as defendant,but also for the acceptability and sustainability of theentire patent system in Europe that decisions of the firstinstance could be issued within approximately one year.In the same way, decisions of the Court of Appealshould, in normal cases, be issued within approximatelyone year.3. Role of the JudgesThe Rules of procedure should allow the various Divisionsof first instance, having panels with different nationalexperiences, to apply the same rules. However, the Rulesof procedure should not be so detailed that the Judgesare caught in a network of rules that do not allow themto take short cuts in the procedure and to discardarguments of minor importance and unjustified extensionof time requests. On the contrary, the Rules ofprocedure should allow the Judges to exercise a certainfreedom and personal authority to conduct an efficientprocedure.The epi noted with satisfaction that Practice Directionsare also contemplated to deal with the details of theprocedure thus avoiding incorporation of too manydetails in the Rules of procedure themselves.4. Damages and costsIn order to arrive at a reasonable duration of the overallCourt procedure, the epi considers that each time it ispossible, the determination of damages as well as coststo be paid by the losing party should be made by theCourt and decided in the decision on the merits. Initiatinga separate procedure for the determination ofdamages and costs should only be necessary in specificallycomplicated cases where an extension of theduration of the procedure could be accepted.5. Appeal procedureThe epi considers essential that final decisions be of highquality i. e. clear, logical and accurate, fully taking intoaccount the technical aspects of the patent. Taking intoaccount the number of different Local and RegionalDivisions which is to be expected and the proposedcomposition of the panels of those Divisions, the epiconsiders that the appeal procedure with a single AppealCourt and panels of five judges including technicallytrained judges is probably the most important aspect ofthe entire organisation.Consequently the epi considers that the procedurebefore the Court of Appeal should allow both parties topresent again the entire situation of the litigation includingpossible new facts and evidence which could notreasonably have been filed before the first instancecourt, as well as new nullity grounds if necessary. Theappeal procedure should therefore not be a simplerevision of the decision at First Instance. Only obviousabuses of the procedure and unjustified late presentedgrounds, facts and evidence should be rejected at thediscretion of the Court.6. Witnesses and experts of the partiesIn order to limit as far as possible the costs and durationof the procedure, the epi considers that evidence bywitnesses and experts of the parties should be strictlylimited to the establishment of factual situations andtechnical questions. Witnesses and experts of the partiesshould not present legal arguments for example onobviousness, skilled person or on interpretation of patentclaims or prior art documents. The procedure should beorganised in such a way that the oral testimony ofwitnesses and experts of the parties is avoided unlessreally necessary, at the discretion of the Court.Questions presented to a witness or an expert of oneparty during an oral examination should only be presentedif agreed by the presiding judge.7. Preserving evidenceThe preservation and determination of evidence of analleged infringement is considered by the epi as anessential feature of an efficient procedure. The Rulesof procedure should therefore clearly authorize a plaintiffto proceed with the inspection of an alleged infringementas well as a description of said alleged infringementin all cases where it is necessary, at the discretion of theCourt and without excessive consideration of the risk ofdestruction of evidence.7.1 The Rules of procedure should make it easily possiblefor a plaintiff, based on reasonable arguments concerningthe necessity of affording evidence of infringement,to obtain from the Court, without the other partybeing heard in advance, an order to proceed with aninspection, in accordance with Article 35a(4) of the draftAgreement.This should permit the plaintiff to present to the Courta complete and detailed description of the allegedinfringement.7.2 This procedure (known in certain countries as “saisie”should however be carefully balanced, taking into

Information 2/2012 Committee Reports 35consideration the interests of the plaintiff as well as theinterests of the defendant.7.3 It should be limited to obtaining evidence of analleged infringement and onlya) few samples of infringing products orb) few samples of products used in an infringing processshould be allowed.7.4 The procedure should be handled by an independentperson nominated by the Court possibly assisted byrepresentatives of the plaintiff duly submitted to theirprofessional rules of conduct including secrecy provisions.No employee of the plaintiff should be allowedto participate to this procedure.7.5 Provisions should also be introduced in the Rules ofprocedure for safeguarding de confidentiality of certaindocuments and information. For example, it could beprovided that photocopies of alleged confidential documentsbe kept in a sealed envelope or the equivalent bythe independent person nominated by the Court so thatthe Court (the Judge Rapporteur) may decide subsequentlywhether those documents can be wholly orpartly communicated to the plaintiff (if necessary only tocertain specific employees of the plaintiff under a protectiveorder).Biotech CommitteeMinutes of EPO/epi Meeting held on 10 November 2011A. de Clercq (BE), Chair of Biotech CommitteeIn Attendance:Thanos Stamalopoulos (GR)Bernd Isert (BI, dir. 2404)Uli Thiele (UT, dir. 2402)Siobhán Yeats (SY, dir. 2403)Victor Kaas (VK, dir. 2401, Munich)Francisco Fernandez y Brañas (dir. 1222, the Hague)Sjoerd Hoekstra (SH, dir. 1223, the Hague)Maria Fotaki (MF, dir. 2405, Munich)Aliki Nichogiannopoulou (AN, dir. 2406, Munich)Imogen Scruton-Evans (GB, dir 2117, JCPAOC)Ann de Clercq – BEGünter Keller– DEBart Swinkels – NLAnne Desaix – FRArpad Pethö – HUAnne Schouboe – DKNiklas Mattsson – SEDieter Wächter – CHAnna Hally – IEOlga Capasso – ITSisko Hillevi Knuth-Lehtola – FILiv Heidi Thoresen – NOSimon Wright – GBAssociate MembersGabriele Leissler-Gerstl (liaison member of EPPC) – DEIntroductionMr Stamalopoulos gave a warm welcome. He said thatfrom the EPO's point of view this is a nice event and it fitsin well with their policy to meet users. As a serviceprovider, the EPO aims to give a good service. Anynewcomers to such EPO/epi annual meetings were welcomed,including the Director from the Pure and OrganicChemistry Joint Cluster.1. Developments since the WARF decision (G2/06), andpossible impact of the ECJ decision on stem cells.EPOpolicy on stem cells.The recent CJEU Brüstle decision (C34/10) was discussed.The decision is somewhat vague, althoughpotentially it might exclude any invention which at somestage necessarily involved the destruction of an embryo.At the time of the meeting the EPO's policy was that themorality exclusion can be overcome if one can refer to apublic hESC cell line deposited after May 2003. Therehave been a handful of cases going to grant on this basis.Note that in the WARF decision G2/06 the EPO decided itcould not refer any questions to the ECJ, as the EPO wasnot a court of a national state.The Brüstle decision answered three questions. For thefirst time it gave an EU-wide definition of an embryo. TheEPO is currently evaluating its practice, and a documentmay be prepared by the Legal Department to be submittedto the CPL meeting in December. The decisionmay be incorporated into the new Guidelines.Note that the EPO adopted the EU legislation (BiotechDirective) for harmonization reasons. Whilst the EPOmay not be able to refer such matters to the CJEU, that

36 Committee Reports Information 2/2012doesn't mean to say that it cannot follow an ECJ decision.It was argued that the EPO should not grant patentsthat would be potentially invalid in national states. If wehave different claims for different states then that couldbe seen as disharmonious. It was noted that PresidentBatistelli had commented on the decision in his blog, andsuggested that the EPO would follow the ECJ decision.2. Impact of EBA decisions G1/07 and G2/08 (Broccoliand Wrinkly Tomatoes), and further developments.These decisions effectively said that the breedingmethods for plants that involve sexual selection areexcluded. Adding additional steps may not make themethod patentable, and back-crossing techniques mayalso be excluded. Both cases were referred to the TBA,and on the Broccoli case Oral Proceedings were due totake place on 26 October 2011. The Board of Appealcancelled the Oral Proceedings in the Broccoli case dueto the filing of amended requests and the case willcontinue in writing. In the tomato case a hearing washeld before Board 3.3.04 on November 8, 2011 and theApplicant had removed all claims to crossing and selection,and so had retained only product claims. Unilever,the Opponent, argued that it would be improper for theEPO to grant claims on products if methods of producingthem were unpatentable. The Board said that it wouldrefer this issue back to the EBA. The questions have notyet been formulated, but Unilever have suggested some.This is the first time ever that one particular case hasreceived two referrals to the EBA. Note that the EPO hasonly a handful of cases on pure breeding methods (onerelates to melon, and the other to lettuce). On a sunflowercase there was a decision last March, but thisconcerned whether what is claimed is a variety (or not).3. EPO's new rules: impact on applicantsConcern was expressed by the epi at President Batistelli'sblog, stating that the grant rate in biotech (about 28%)was lower than the EPO average grant rate. It was noted,though, that about 90% of biotech cases do not haveethical/morality issues. The biotech cluster performsabout 10,000 searches a year, and grants about 3,000cases.Generally speaking, the change to a 6 month term forthe Rule 161 Communication was welcomed. Therewas, however, little experience of practice under Rules62 and 63, and such issues have not been raised on thatmany cases. It was uncertain whether Rule 63(2) couldbe raised as a reason for not searching.It was noted that some Applicants are now contactingExaminers just before the 2 year deadline after theExamining Division's first communication, in order toclarify the situation on disunity. This is to decide whetherdivisional(s) were required. It was noted that if onerestricts to the first invention during examination, andthen one gets a further disunity objection, then thatobjection should be treated as a new one, under Rule 36(1)(b).The epi called for an end to “precautionary” disunityobjections, for example where Examiners suggest thatone might be raised later. The epi welcomed the EPOasking Examiners to include a standard clause explicitlystating if a new disunity objection is being raised. Examinershave now been asked to do this wherever a newdisunity objection is going to appear, as a result ofinternal instructions.4. Disunity practiceThe epi said that their perception is that disunity objectionshave increased, and that Examiners are now lesslikely to accept a common inventive concept. The EPOremarked that there were lots of cases with largenumbers of sequences, and that applicants should tryto ensure that these sequences have a (smaller) commonsequence, as well as a common function (if possible). Theepi thought that Examiners seem too ready to acceptlack of novelty, and can use (lack of) clarity and supportissues in order to justify disunity. These are substantiveissues which are perhaps better suited to examination,rather than the search stage. It was noted that applicantscannot challenge the Examiner's view at the searchstage, and even if one tries they rarely change theirminds.The protest procedure now involves three people fromthe EPO. A workshop or other follow-up on the issue ofdisunity may be pursued, perhaps through the EP academy.The EPO requested concrete examples from the epi,and possibly some statistics, where disunity has beenwrongly raised. The EPO said that they will tackle inconsistency,but need examples first. They were sympatheticover the short two year divisional deadline, and it wasagreed that before long we may see a test case wherethe only reason for a refusal was under Article 82.5. Restricted admissibility of functional features in orderto seek broad protectionThe epi is seeing many objections based on lack ofsupport and/or lack of inventive step and sufficiencyacross the breadth of the claim. The EPO may have onlysearched the exemplified embodiments and argue thatthe claim should be limited to these exemplified embodiments.Functional features will be allowed, but structuralfeatures are preferred. Inherently, it was argued, claimsto compounds defined by functional features have anindefinite number of possibilities (this was agreed, butthat is not necessarily the issue, especially if that does notnecessarily lead to sufficiency problems). Claims withfunctional features, but no structural ones, can be moredifficult to search. For example, what happens if acompound in the prior art has that function, inherently,but that function is not disclosed in the prior art?6. Sequence listings and fees payable therefor.Changes were announced in the Notice of the Presidentin OJ 6/2011, 376, without prior consultation with theepi.The EPO said that divisionals need their own sequencelistings as the description or claims may be different fromthe parent application. It is still not clear to the epi,though, why one cannot refer to a sequence listing on a

Information 2/2012 Education and Training 37parent case, if the sequence listing to be filed on adivisional application is identical to that filed on theparent.It was noted for e-filed PCT cases at the EPO, subsequentdocuments (such as sequence listings!) couldnot be e-filed. This will be taken up within the EPO.7. Conducting Oral proceedingsIt was noted that some Examiners are setting very shortdeadlines, with little more than the minimum of 2months. The EPO suggested that Applicants could ringExaminers if they would like to re-schedule, and indeedmost Examiners should re-schedule if requested. It wasnoted that new objections in Summons were neitherdiscouraged nor encouraged.8. Inventions in the area of pharmacogenomics:This concerns cases which are based on a genetic markerto treat a disease, for example methylation profiles. It caninvolve a new patient group defined by an SNP. The EPOsaid that often the claims can lack novelty, as one patientwill have inevitably been treated with the SNP, even if theart does not explicitly say so.9. Third party observations (TPOs): does the new onlinetool encourage more third party observations?Examiners will now always comment on the TPOs, even ifit just to say that the observations are no barrier to grant.The EPO will now accept observations after issue of theRule 71(3) notice. However, they will not be consideredafter the decision to grant notice has been issued. It wasnoted that observations were most often filed on vaccineand antibody cases, and occasionally on plant applications.10. Changes regarding the two types of 2nd medicaluse claimsIt was noted where there may be an issue of doublepatenting for Swiss-style and EPC 2000 style claims. Inother words, would one be able to get two separateEuropean patents, one for each type? There is likely to bea test case on this. It was noted that one cannot switchbetween these two types of claims post-grant.The meeting closed at 12 noon.Mock EQEs 2012The mock EQE offers participants the possibility to sit theEQE exams under exam-like conditions. The participantssit the various exams (A[Ch], A[E/M], B[Ch], B[E/M], Cand D) in the same order as the real exam and are givenexactly the same time to sit the paper. The exam paperswill be selected from previous EQE exams and are chosenfor their teaching value. The papers are reviewed byexperienced epi tutors. About one to two months afterthe mock EQE the tutors discuss the papers in smallgroups. Each participant receives personal feedback onhis/her work.Participants may sit any combination of papers.Scheduled events:Helsinki:Mock EQE: 15–17 October 2012Feedback session: 14–16 November 2012Further information to follow on epi website:www.patentepi.com –> EQE and TrainingNächste Ausgaben · Forthcoming issues · Prochaines éditionsIssue Deadline Publication3/2012 10 August 2012 30 September 20124/2012 02 November 2012 30 December 2012

38 Education and Training Information 2/2012Training for the EQE pre-examination 2013A. Zellner (DE), EPO, European Patent AcademyStarting in September 2012 candidates will again havethe opportunity to take a comprehensive online coursejointly developed by the epi and the European PatentAcademy. An EQE pre-examination training course ranfor the first time in 2011-2012. The new course will be aconsiderably extended version of the original one.The 2012/13 course is aimed at students preparing forthe pre-examination on 25 February 2013. It comprisesvarious e-learning components including:– in-depth articles on major examination topics plusmultiple-choice questions to ensure that the importantpoints of each topic are fully understood– recorded lectures– further sets of multiple-choice questions– in-depth case studies– virtual classroom sessions to give students an opportunityto ask selected experts questions in real time– access to the pre-examination course forum, a dedicatedsupport area monitored by the course tutors.Registration starts in July 2012, at which point a previewof the course content will also be available. It will containa course outline and at least one full topic plus questions.To receive notification and latest updates, please signup at www.eqe-online.org/pre-exam/course/.Seminars introducing the EQE to potential candidatesA. Zellner (DE), EPO, European Patent AcademyThe European Patent Academy jointly organises seminarswith the epi and the CEIPI that are designed to raiseawareness of what is tested in each of the differentexamination papers and the knowledge and skillsrequired to pass. The participants get an understandingof the concepts behind the different papers and aninsight into the critical factors, along with informationon how to structure their preparation. They also get abasic understanding of what the examination committeesexpect by way of a correct answer.This year a session took place in Oslo on 15 May.Registration will soon open for a second session to takeplace in Warsaw on 5 October. Other locations and datescan be arranged on request.Contact: profrep@epo.orgTake a look at the EQE ForumA. Zellner (DE), EPO, European Patent AcademyWhen launched in 2006, the Forum was intended tofacilitate discussion amongst EQE candidates. In themeantime, it has been developed to become a centralinformation and training platform. More than 12000posts in almost 3000 different threads are currentlyavailable to users. Since the beginning of 2010, therehave been over 200000 visitor sessions. To run throughthe services it offers, see: www.eqe-online.org

Information 2/2012 Education and Training 39Tutors wantedAs epi is always looking to add new tutors to its currentgroup we would like to know whether you are – inprinciple – interested in participating in this activity. Incase you decide to volunteer your commitment is conditional:you will always be asked whether you are willingto tutor in a specific event.Please volunteer by filling in the form available on theepi website (www.patentepi.com –> EQE and Training).For any further queries, kindly contact theepi Secretariat (education@patentepi.com).10 th CEIPI epi Course on Patent Litigation in EuropeThe programme of the 2012/2013 CEIPI epi Course isavailable on the epi website www.patentepi.com as wellas on the CEIPI website www.ceipi.eduFor further information or application, please refer toWalter Holzer (Course Coordinator) WHolzer@gmx.atCEIPI preparation courses for theEQE pre-examination and main examination 2013The Centre for International Intellectual Property Studies(CEIPI), more in particular its International Section, offersan extensive programme of courses for preparing candidatesfor the European qualifying examination (EQE).A pre-examination will be held in 2013for thosecandidates who fulfil the requirements to present themselvesto the pre-examination of the EQE in 2013 (seeSupplement to OJEPO 12/2011).The CEIPI is organising seminars in Strasbourg to helpcandidates in preparing themselves for that pre-examination.The main seminar will take place from 5 to 9 November2012. It will cover relevant topics which can beexpected for the pre-examination. It will give participantsthe opportunity to apply their knowledge in a mockexamination.The course fee is EUR 1 400. Closing date for enrolmentis 1 st October 2012. More information can beobtained from christiane.melz@ceipi.edu or from theCEIPI website at www.ceipi.eduAs a complement to this seminar, the CEIPI offers apre-exam “Cramming Course” as a last minute opportunityto candidates wishing to improve their skills inrespect of this paper. Participants will sit a paper underexam conditions, followed by a discussion of the draftedpapers with the tutor. This Cramming Course will takeplace on 8 February 2013 inStrasbourg.The course fee is EUR 500. Closing date for enrolmentis 4 January 2013. More information can be obtainedfrom christiane.melz@ceipi.edu or from the CEIPI websiteat www.ceipi.eduFor all papers to the EQE main examination 2013(AB, C and D), the programme starts with “IntroductoryCourses” in the early autumn of 2012, in a number ofdifferent cities in Europe (Strasbourg, Paris, Copenhagen,Milan), so as to set candidates on the rails, asearly as possible, in preparing themselves.The introductory courses are followed by the “PreparatorySeminars” in November 2012 and January2013, centrally in Strasbourg, France, which build upon the introductory courses and expand on the issuestreated, as well as provide for working on a mock examunder exam conditions, which is then compared with aCEIPI “model solution”.CEIPI, through its tutors, has developed this programmeover recent years and believes it has beensuccessful in providing a large number of candidates(about 400 every year) with a set of courses adapted tothe EQE, increasing their chances of success.For paper C, which every year appears to be one of themajor stumbling blocks of the EQE, this programme is

40 Information from the Secretariat Information 2/2012supplemented with two extra courses: a “Special C-Resitter”course specifically designed for those who havefailed the C-paper (more than) once, and a last-minute“Cramming” Course, one month before the examination,where candidates, can sit last year's paper underexam conditions, followed by a discussion of thesedrafted papers and the CEIPI-model solution the followingday, in small groups. This course also provides foranswering any last-minute questions regarding paper C.The “Special C-Resitter” course is offered in Strasbourg.The “Cramming Course” for paper C will be held inStrasbourg for English- and German-speaking candidatesand in Paris for French-speaking candidates.All courses are provided in the three EPO officiallanguages: English, French and German, and are givenby a mix of tutors from private practice (epi), industry andthe EPO.The program is as follows (more extensive informationis contained in OJEPO 4/2012):„Introductory Courses“ 2012:Paper Milan (EN) Copenhagen Paris (FR) Lyon (FR) Strasbourg (EN, Paris (EN)(EN)DE)AB 21./22.09. 21./22.09. 28.09. 29.09. 28.09C 5./6.10. 5./6.10. 29.09. 28.09. 29.09D 12./13.10. 12./13.10. 7./8.09. 14./15.09 26./27.09. 26./27.09The fee for each one-day course in Paris or Strasbourg isEUR 500. The fee for the one-and-a-half day courses inStrasbourg, Paris, Milan and Copenhagen is EUR 750each.Closing date for enrolment is 20 July 2012.More information can be obtained fromsylvie.kra@ceipi.edu or from the CEIPI website atwww.ceipi.edu„Preparatory Seminars“ 2012/2013:The AB seminar will be held in Strasbourg, from 26 to 28(am) November 2012, the C seminar from 28 (pm) to 30(pm) November 2012. Both parts can be booked separately.The D seminar will be held twice in Strasbourg, from 7to 11 January 2013 and from 21 to 25 January 2013. Allseminars are intended for those who wish to sit the EQEmain examination in 2013.The fee is EUR 1 400for the five-day courses (ABC orD); for the AB or C part on its own the fee is EUR 725.Closing date for enrolment is 1 st October 2012.More information can be obtained from melanie.walbrou@ceipi.eduor from the CEIPI website atwww.ceipi.edu.The “Special C-Resitter” course 2012 will be held inStrasbourg on 23 and 24 November 2012.The course fee is EUR 850. The price includes the“C-Book”, 3rd edition.Closing date for enrolment is 1 st October 2012.More information can be obtained fromsylvie.kra@ceipi.edu or from the CEIPI website atwww.ceipi.edu.The “Cramming” course 2013 will be held in Strasbourg(EN, DE) on 7 and 8 February 2013 and in Paris (FR) on 2February 2013.The fee for the Strasbourg course is EUR 650, for theParis course EUR 500.Closing date for enrolment is 4 January 2013.More information can be obtained fromsylvie.kra@ceipi.edu or from the CEIPI website atwww.ceipi.edu.Christiane Melz, Secretariat of the International Sectionof CEIPI, (for any information on the above courses:telephone 0033 368 858313 or mail tochristiane.melz@ceipi.edu)Next Board and Council MeetingsBoard Meetings87 th Board meeting on 6 th October 2012 in Istanbul (TR)88 th Board meeting on 23 March 2013 in Stockholm (SE)89 th Board meeting on 28 September 2013 in Riga (LV)Council Meetings73 rd Council meeting on 10 th November 2012in Hamburg (DE)74 th Council meeting on 19/20 April 2013 in Vienna (AT)

Information 2/2012 Information from the Secretariat 41News from epi CouncilAt the 72 nd Council meeting the following elections were carried out:Mr Lars Estreen (SE) was elected Board member for SwedenMr Luigi Sansone (MT) was elected Board member for MaltaMs Valérie Mellet (LU) was elected substitute Council member for LuxembourgMr Filippo Santi (IT) was elected full member of Harmonisation CommitteeMr Enrique Armijo (ES) was elected full member of Litigation CommitteeMr Gian Giuseppe Masciopinto (SM) was elected full member of Litigation CommitteeMr Inigo Elosegui (ES) was elected substitute member of Lititgation Committee

42 Articles Information 2/2012Contact Data of Legal DivisionUpdate of the European Patent Attorneys databasePlease send any change of contact details to the EuropeanPatent Office so that the list of professional representativescan be kept up to date. The list of professionalrepresentatives, kept by the EPO, is also the listused by epi. Therefore, to make sure that epi mailings aswell as e-mail correspondence reach you at the correctaddress, please inform the EPO Directorate 523 of anychange in your contact details.Kindly note the following contact data of the LegalDivision of the EPO (Dir. 5.2.3.):European Patent OfficeDir. 5.2.3.Legal Division80298 MunichGermanyTel.: +49 (0)89 2399-5231Fax: +49 (0)89 2399-5148legaldivision@epo.orgwww.epo.orgThank you for your cooperation.FICPI World Congress and Executive Committee Meeting,Melbourne, 15–21 April 2012II – Contributions from epi Members and other contributionsT. Johnson (GB)The FICPI World Congress takes place generally everythree years, usually in conjunction with a meeting of theExecutive Committee, the FICPI body effectively equivalentto the epi Council. I attended both meetings.The Congress theme this time was Communicationand Co-operation, with a sub-text of contending withcreeping centralisation in contracting countries. Therewere several Congress sessions to address these themes,including “Judges Without Borders – how Judges useDecisions from other countries”; “Offices WorkingTogether with Users for a Better IP World”; “A SinglePatent in Europe (at Last?)”; and “Centralised IP: Whereis the Profession Going?”. The background papers willbe available on the FICPI website, www.ficpi.org.FICPI invites sister organisations, of which our Instituteis one, to these meetings. I had the honour of representingthe epi in place of our President. In addition tosister organisations the official side is also invited; PhilippeBaechtold of WIPO gave a presentation of the latestwork being undertaken by WIPO, for example continuingwork on the Roadmap, and taking steps to enhanceInternational Preliminary Examination .For our Institute I gave a brief report to the ExecutiveCommittee on Council position papers of mutual interest,namely on the UPC, stem cell patenting, how weco-operate with the EPO, the Praktika Extern Programme,and our appointment of a Director of Education,Karl Rackette. I gave a resume of his role andmentioned that Karl is a FICPI member too. As readerswill appreciate most of the themes I have mentioned arealso of interest to FICPI too, particularly that of providinga quality qualified profession in each country.The World Congress marks the end of one term of theInternational President of FICPI and election of his or hersuccessor for the ensuing three years. In MelbournePeter Huntsman (AU) stepped down as President andBastiaan Koster (ZA) was unanimously elected as thenew President of FICPI for the next three years. The nextWorld Congress is scheduled to be held in South Africa,probably in Cape Town, in 2015.

Information 2/2012 Articles 43Statistics, their use and abuse, and the EQEJ. Boff (GB)In epi Information 4/2011 G. Checcacci gave an interestingand detailed article on the calculation of EQE passrates, showing how the current system could give manyfalse impressions, and warning that the new pre-examinationmay require additional care in analysis.Concentration on numbers can be unhealthy, particularlyif they are the wrong numbers, and perhaps it is timeto step back and consider what information provides thebest information to all of the parties involved: thecandidates; their employers; their trainers; and the EPO.To each candidate, what is most important is whenthey become fully qualified. The candidate is interestedin qualifying in the minimum possible time, with theminimum number of examinations. At present candidatescan only guess how long this might take, and theirguesses may be heavily influenced by those they areworking with. This means that it can be difficult for acandidate to assess the quality of their own training.For employers the time to qualification is mostimportant, as this determines when the candidate canact independently. Employers are also interested in thecandidate's preparation and examination incurring theminimum cost and disruption, and so the number oftimes a candidate sits is of interest.For trainers [and this includes employers, independenttrainers, national constituencies and associations]the time to qualification reflects on whether their trainingregime is sufficient to get candidates qualified in areasonable time. The pass rate of given papers may be ofinterest for trainers who concentrate on preparing candidatesfor particular papers: but for those involved inthe complete training of a candidate, the pass rate will beof less relevance.For the EPO the most important statistic is thenumber of times candidates sit the exam. Each exampaper sat costs the EPO money (although this maychange as the number paying extortionate fees forfourth and subsequent resits escalates). The candidatethat is well prepared and qualifies with few or no resitsincurs lower costs to the EPO than the candidate whofrequently resits. That is why escalating examination feeshave been introduced. Although escalating examinationfees punish candidates who sit the examination “tooearly”, they do not provide information to the candidateas to when “too early” might be.The pass rate for a given paper in a given year doesprovide some limited information; but not as much asone would at first think [see the Checcacci article].Thus it appears that there are two statistics that wouldbe widely useful [time to pass, and number of times sat]and one that appears of only narrow use [percentagepass rate].Accordingly I suggest that in addition to the pass rates,further more useful statistics be presented each year.The first statistic would be an indication of how longthe passing candidates and the failing candidates [foreach paper, and the examination as a whole] have beenin the profession.This information is in principle readily calculable, requiringjust one date for each candidate, determining thedifference from the date the results issue, and then asimple average. Expressing this average in years fromentry into the profession is possible, although expressingit as a number of days may make it easier to understand.A candidate cannot pass within 1000 days from entryinto the profession [due to the three year qualificationperiod] but it would be nice to know whether thecandidate can expect to be qualified in 2000 days. Ifthe average time to pass exceeds 3000 days then there isa problem, particularly for those candidates who enterthe profession late in life.The average time from entry into the profession forthose passing provides useful information to the candidates,and would be less liable to violent swings than thepass rate in any given year. This would be less likely tospread alarm and despondency than does the currentconcentration on pass rates.Such statistics would also be useful in analysing thequality of the examination and the adequacy of training.If the average time from entry into the profession forthose passing is lower than for those failing, then theremay be some problem candidates.If the average time from entry into the profession forthose passing is higher than for those failing, thencandidates are on average taking the examination tooearly.If the average time from entry into the profession, forpassing and failing candidates, are identical; then it mayindicate a reasonably balanced examination, even if thecandidates are unbalanced, with some passing soonerthan the average, and some later.Having an average time to qualification allows candidatesto assess themselves [and their trainers] on a moreinformed basis. Having a clearer understanding of wherea candidate is compared to the average, will assist betterdecision making.If the average time from entry into the profession forthose passing differs significantly and consistentlybetween papers, then it may indicate problems withsome papers, but more likely it will indicate that someskills take more time to master than others, and candidatescould consider this when deciding when to sitparticular papers.Of course, averages hide a lot of detail, and it could beworth including, for both passing and failing candidates,

44 Articles Information 2/2012additional information excluding extreme candidates[e.g. the range of average time from entry into theprofession excluding the top and bottom deciles].The second statistic would be the average numberof times passing and failing candidates have sat eachpaper. Again a simple average may be applied.Candidates currently have to indicate how many timesthey have previously sat a paper since 2010, so as topermit calculation of fees. There would be little difficultyin requiring them to provide the information for earlieryears so as to ensure availability of statistics.For the candidate, multiple sittings of a paper not onlytakes time and emotional energy, it costs more. Theaverage number of sittings required to pass a particularpaper, in combination with the average time to pass, willprovide useful information to determine the extent ofpreparation required for each paper.The benefits to be expected from better statisticsinclude:-• better candidate choices and preparation;• lower costs and greater predictability for all parties;• improved training;• fewer rumours; and possibly,• better structuring of the examination.Rule 137(5) EPC –An Irresistible Temptation?Y. Robin (GB) * and P. Chapman, T. Hargreaves (Co-authors ** )(GB)BackgroundEuropean patent attorneys are familiar with the requirementsof Article 123(2) EPC, according to which aEuropean patent application or European patent maynot be amended in such a way that it contains subjectmatterwhich extends beyond the content of the Europeanapplication as filed.A further limitation to the opportunity to amend theclaims is determined by Rule 137(5) EPC, which recites asfollows (emphasis added):Amended claims may not relate to unsearched subject-matterwhich does not combine with the originallyclaimed invention or group of inventions to forma single general inventive concept. Nor may theyrelate to subject-matter not searched in accordancewith Rule 62a or Rule 63.Rule 62a relates to limitations of the European search inthe case of a plurality of independent claims in the samecategory. Rule 63 relates to limitations of the Europeansearch in the event that it is impossible to carry out ameaningful search.A recent increase in the number of objections raised byEuropean Examiners under Rule 137(5) EPC has beenobserved. In this article the author discusses the natureof and legal basis for such objections, and suggests anumber of practical measures to reduce the risk oftriggering objections under Rule 137(5) EPC.* Yann Robin is an associate at the Glasgow office of Marks & Clerk LLP** Paul Chapman and Tim Hargreaves are European Patent Attorneys andpartners at the Edinburgh office of Marks & Clerk LLPThe following are simplified real life examples of claimamendments which triggered objections under Rule137(5) EPC.Example 1Independent Claim 1: Product comprising A + B.Independent Claim 2: Product comprising A + C.Dependent Claim 3: Product according to claim 2,further comprising D.A product comprising feature A is known from the priorart. The EPO therefore raised an objection of lack of unitybetween claim 1 and claim 2. As a result, claim 1 wassearched, while claims 2 and 3 were not searched.During prosecution, claim 1 was amended to incorporatefeature D. The combination of features A, B and Dfound clear and unambiguous basis in the description asoriginally filed.Nevertheless, an objection under Rule 137(5) EPC wasraised, and later maintained, on the basis that feature Drelated to unsearched subject-matter because claim 3was not searched.Example 2Independent Claim 1: Product comprising A + B.Dependent Claim 2: Product according to claim 1,wherein B comprises B1.Independent Claim 3: Product comprising A + C.Dependent Claim 4: Product according to claim 3,wherein B further comprises B2.

Information 2/2012 Articles 45A product comprising feature A is known from the priorart. The EPO therefore raised an objection of lack of unitybetween claim 1 and claim 3. As a result, claims 1 and 2were searched, while claims 3 and 4 were not searched.During prosecution, claim 1 was amended to incorporatethe subject matter of claim 2 (B comprises B1),and also to recite that B further comprises B2. Thisamendment found clear and unambiguous basis in thedescription as originally filed, and the combination offeatures A, B1 and B2 was clearly and unambiguouslyderivable from the description. It was clear that originalclaim 4 incorrectly depended upon claim 3, and shouldhave depended upon claim 1.Nevertheless, an objection under Rule 137(5) EPC wasraised, and later maintained, on the basis that feature B2related to unsearched subject-matter because claim 4was not searched.Legal BasisWhen does an amendment fall foul of Rule 137(5) EPC,and were the above objections justified?OriginsNew Rule 137(5) EPC was established by a Decision ofthe Administrative Council dated 25 March 2009 (CA/D3/09, OJEPO 2009, 299). It is noteworthy that Rule137(5) EPC was introduced with a “Notice from theEPO dated 15 October 2009 concerning amendments tothe Implementing Regulations to the EPC” as part of“Raising the Bar”. Paragraph 7.4 of this Notice states:“Where the claims have been limited under Rule 62a(2)or Rule 63(3) EPC, amendments based on non-searchedsubject-matter can no longer be derived from thedescription at a later stage of the grant procedure. Thesubject-matter excluded from the search under Rule 62aor Rule 63 EPC may, however, be prosecuted in divisionalapplications, which must be filed by the deadline laiddown in Rule 36(1)(a) EPC.” This confirms that the merefact that the subject-matter in question can be found inthe description is not sufficient to overcome the requirementsof Rules 137(5) EPC, second sentence.Guidelines for Examination in the EPOC-VI, 5.2“If amended claims are directed to subject-matter whichhas not been searched (e.g. because it only appeared inthe description and the Search Division did not find itappropriate to extend the search to this subject-matter,see B-III, 3.5) and which does not combine with theoriginally claimed and searched invention or group ofinventions to form a single general inventive concept,such amendments are not admissible”Paragraph C-VI, 5.2 of the Guidelines appears consistentwith the wording of Rule 137(5) EPC, first sentence. Thissection of the Guidelines further directs the reader toparagraph B-III, 3.5for an interpretation of what constitutesunsearched subject-matter:B-III, 3.5“In principle, and insofar as possible and reasonable, thesearch should cover the entire subject-matter to whichthe claims are directed or to which they might reasonablybe expected to be directed after they have beenamended”Paragraph B-III, 3.5 of the Guidelines clarifies that thesearch should cover not only the subject-matter of theclaims, but also the subject-matter which might reasonablyform the basis for a possible amendment. However,this passage opens up a broad range of possible interpretationsin respect of the phrase “to which they [theclaims] might reasonably be expected to be directedafter they have been amended”.It follows that an important point to consider is: Whencan a feature which is not present in the claims neverthelessbe deemed to have been searched by the SearchDivision?Case Law of the Boards of AppealsThe Case Law of the Boards of Appeals provides somehelpful clarification on this issue.G2/92 explains that “An applicant who fails to pay thefurther search fees for a non-unitary application whenrequested to do so by the Search Division under Rule46(1) EPC cannot pursue that application for the subjectmatterin respect of which no search fees have beenpaid”. Further, “the Search Division then has to draw upthe search report “for those parts of the Europeanpatent application which relate to inventions in respectof which search fees have been paid”.”G2/92 further clarifies that the Examining Division isprovided with a certain amount of flexibility in thejudgement it may apply in each case: “If the SearchDivision had previously considered that the applicationdid not comply with the requirement of unity of invention,and had requested and received payment of one ormore additional search fees, then during the examinationstage in accordance with Rule 46(2) EPC, theapplicant may request and receive a refund of suchadditional search fees if the Examining Division finds(contrary to the Search Division) that the applicationdoes meet the requirement of unity of invention inArticle 82 EPC”.Therefore, it appears that the subject-matter to beexamined must relate to an invention for which a searchfee has been paid.T613/99 confirmed G2/92, and stated that Rule 86(4)EPC 1973 (Rule 137(5) EPC 2000) referred to a particularsituation, i. e. where the patentability of fresh claimscould not be examined in the context of the originalapplication, since this would have amounted to a derogationfrom the principle endorsed in G2/92.T274/03 perhaps provides the most useful summaryof what constitutes unsearched subject-matter:

46 Articles Information 2/2012“(…) it is clear that post-search “switching” of subjectmatterclearly implies a significant change in the natureof the subject-matter being claimed which is notnormally comparable to the addition of features takenfrom the description to further define an element thatwas already a feature of the original main claim.In accordance with the case law of the Boards ofAppeal (T 377/01, point 3.1 and T 708/00, point 17, bothdecisions not published in OJEPO) the Board is of theopinion that an amendment amounting to the restrictionof an original main claim by including complementaryfeatures from the original description into the claimrepresents an admissible reaction of an applicant vis-à-visan objection against the patentability of the unamendedclaim and does not constitute an abuse of the system ofthe nature which Rule 86(4) EPC was introduced toprevent. This type of amendment should not thereforein general be judged as contravening the requirementsof the rule, even though an additional search may berequired”.The recent T1285/11 Decision also confirms that incorrectfindings by the Search Division are not binding onthe Examining Division:“According to the practice of the EPO, as set out in theGuidelines for Examination (C-III, 7.10, first paragraph)and explained in detail in decision J3/09 (see Reasons,points 3.5.4 to 3.5.7, in particular point 3.5.6), theresponsibility for establishing whether or not the applicationmeets the requirements of unity of invention ultimatelyrests with the examining division, and the opinionof the EPO acting as the ISA on lack of unity is not final orbinding on the examining division. The fact that theapplicant did not pay further search fees or protest feesin the international phase cannot therefore be seen as atacit agreement with the findings of non-unity of theISA, as submitted by the examining division in thedecision under appeal.To the extent that an objection of non-unity raised bythe ISA turns out to be unjustified, the applicant isentitled as of right to have the whole subject-matter ofhis unitary invention searched. If need be, an additionalsearch would have to be performed (see Guidelines forExamination, C-III, 7.10, third paragraph, last sentence,and 7.11.1(v); decision J 3/09, Reasons, points 3.5.6 and5.2), regardless of whether or not this might involve anadditional effort.”DiscussionFrom a close inspection of the Guidelines and the relevantcase law, it appears that the mere fact that a claimwas not searched does not necessarily mean that somesubject-matter (e.g. a specific feature) contained withinthat claim, was not searched. In other words,unsearched claims should not always imply unsearchedsubject-matter.Nevertheless, EPO Examiners appear to be increasinglyprompt to raise objections under Rule 137(5) EPC on thebasis that a claim was not searched, sometimes withapparently little consideration as to whether the subjectmatterof that claim was, or should have been, searched.A practical implication for European attorneys is: cananything be done to reduce the risk of an objection beingraised under Rule 137(5) EPC? Although T1285/11 confirmsthat incorrect findings from the Search Division arenot binding on the Examining Division, it is a generallyaccepted principle that prevention is better than cure.Since this type of objection is normally raised when anExaminer considers that the subject-matter of a claim hasnot been searched, one should try to ensure that allclaims presented on filing can reasonably be expected tobe searched.As part of “Raising the Bar”, the EPO is becomingincreasingly strict on enforcing compliance of the claimswith the EPC, including Article 82 EPC (unity of invention),and Rule 43(2) (plurality of independent claims inthe same category).Even when a set of claims satisfies the requirements ofunity of invention, it is not uncommon for it to alsocontain several independent claims in the same categoryon filing. It is tempting to perceive such claims sets aspotentially increasing the flexibility of amendment duringprosecution. The ultimate client may also deliberatelyopt to maintain multiple independent claims in onecategory because they may not yet know which independentclaim covers best the product(s) which will befinally put on the market.Nevertheless, with the recent trend relating to Rule137(5) EPC objections, it could be argued that such setsof claims may potentially diminish the flexibility ofamendment during future prosecution. This is because,unless such claims clearly fall within one of the exceptionslisted under Rule 43(2) EPC, it is likely that only oneof these claims will be searched pursuant to Rule 62aEPC. This could potentially limit an Applicant's opportunityto amend the claims to introduce subject-matterwhich was present in those claims under Rule 137(5)EPC, second sentence, based on the current applicationof this Rule by the EPO.On the other hand, if no such multiple independentclaims in the same category were present on filing, andthe description of the application as filed clearly andunambiguously discloses the subject-matter of theamendment in combination with the claims searchedby the Search Division, then no objection under Rule137(5) EPC, second sentence, should be raised. Further,amending the claims to incorporate that subject-mattermay be allowable under Article 123(2) EPC.Compliance with Article 123(2) EPC is not, of course,the sole requirement as to whether or not an amendmentis allowable.It is easy to envisage an amendment to a preferredfeature which would find clear and unambiguous basis inthe description as originally filed, yet which would bedeemed not to combine with the originally claimedinvention to form a single general inventive concept,i. e. which would lack unity. In such a case, the amendmentwould likely not be permissible under Rule 137(5)

Information 2/2012 Articles 47EPC, even if that feature was not part of any of theoriginal claims.Another concern emerging from the recent increase inthe number of objections under Rule 137(5) EPC relatesto the new Rules regarding the filing of divisional applicationsunder EPC 2000. Under Rule 36(a) EPC, any voluntarydivisional application must be filed before the expiryof 24 months from the Examining Division's first communicationin respect of the earliest application. Thisadditional hurdle now creates the risk that an objectionunder Rule 137(5) might be raised late in proceedings inview of an amendment made by the Applicant, and that,at the time the objection under Rule 137(5) is raised, it isalready too late to file a divisional application. This isparticularly relevant when the application relates to atechnical field in which the EPO still has a significantbacklog of applications to be examined. When concernsarise as to whether or not an objection under Rule 137(5)EPC might be raised in relation to a particular amendment,it may be prudent to request accelerated examinationunder the 'PACE' procedure at the same time asresponding to a first communication from the ExaminingDivision. By doing so, the Applicant will likely receive afurther Communication from the Examining Divisionwithin 24 months of the first Communication, and willtherefore have the opportunity to file a voluntary divisionalapplication to overcome any objection that mightbe raised under Rule 137(5) EPC.As discussed earlier, one practical option to reduce therisk of an objection under Rule 137(5) EPC being raisedmay be, in some circumstances, to minimise the numberof independent claims in each category. A number ofpossibilities exist to make use of this option. For example,one could delay the filing of claims until an invitationunder Rule 57(c) is received to allow additional time tofinalise the claims. In the case of Euro-PCT applicationwhere the EPO was not the ISA, one could amend theclaims in response to a communication under Rule161(2), before the EPO draws up a supplementary searchreport.Another potentially helpful measure may be to includeas many features in dependent claims as possible onfiling, using 'alternative' (and/or) language or 'optional'language in order to avoid excess claims fees. Unfortunately,this may lead to possible clarity objectionsunder Article 84 EPC.Therefore, there are numerous parameters to be consideredwhen preparing claims for filing a Europeanapplication, or for entering the European regional phaseof a PCTapplication for which the EPO was not the ISA. Itmay be too early to decide whether or not the increasingfrequency of objections under Rule 137(5) EPC, shouldinfluence the form of the claims we, European PatentAttorneys, chose to present on filing European patentapplications. However, it appears that the choice ofstrategy adopted in each case may have an influenceon the Applicant's opportunity to amend the claimsduring examination, and should therefore not be overlooked.This issue should therefore be considered withgreat care until such time that a consistent approach asregards implementation of Rule 137(5) EPC is adopted bythe EPO.With thanks to the following contributors *** :Alastair Blake, Mairi Rudkin*** Alastair Blake and MairiRudkin are part-qualified patent attorneys at theGlasgow office of Marks & Clerk LLPDie Erfinderische Tätigkeit (inventive step etc.)ist wissenschaftlich erledigtDr. A. W. Kumm (DE)I.Kant: „Die so niemals selbst denken, besitzen dennoch dieScharfsichtigkeit, alles, nachdem es ihnen gezeigt worden,in demjenigen, was sonst schon gesagt worden, aufzuspähen,wo es doch vorher niemand sehen konnte“ 1 .Dieser „Fachmann“ hat freilich überhaupt nichts zutun mit einem der vielleicht ein paar Millionen realerSpezialisten- den wahren technischen Fachleuten derErde-, die in einigen hundert technischer Fachgebieteverschiedener Größe tätig sind 2 . Er ist vielmehr einfiktives Gesetzeskonstrukt, ein Phantom, das verkörpertII.Die Erfinderische Tätigkeit- inventive step, Isobretátelskijúroven, jin bu xing etc. – ergäbe sich für „den Fachmann“als nicht nahe liegend (z. B. Art. 52 und 56 EPÜ).1 lmmanuel Kant, 1724 – 1802, der geniale Denker in Königsberg in Preußen.Zitat aus „Prologemina“ von 1783.2 Ein realer Fachmann ist imstande auf einem eindeutig definierten technischenProbleme durch selbständiges und Handeln zu erkennen, zu lösenund zu beurteilen. Das Wissen und Können dieser Spezialisten ist gaußischnormalverteilt.Sie gliedern sich folglich in unterdurchschnittliche Fachleutemit nur applikativer Eignung oder in durchschnittliche Fachleute mit adaptiverBefähigung oder in überdurchschnittliche Fachleute mit talentierter bisgenialer Begabung.

48 Articles Information 2/2012wird von einem, von drei, vier, fünf, sogar sieben amtlichbestellten Prüfern/Richtern, also von Nichtfachleuten 3 .Diese bewerten eine selbst und nachträglich konstruiertefiktive Handlungsweise, die der reale Erfindergehabt hätte.Die zwei gesetzlichen Normen sind jedoch nicht operabel(nicht widerspruchsfrei festzustellen), denn jenesWerturteil ist keine objektive (vom Beurteiler unabhängige)technische Feststellung, sie ist keine objektiveRealdefinition. Die erfinderische Tätigkeit (etc.) istsonach wissenschaftlich erledigt 4 .III.Die Rechtsanwender verleugnen einfach die beiden nichtoperablen Normen und setzen ohne erkenntnistheoretischeZweifel einfach dies fest: „Die Beurteilung dererfinderischen Tätigkeit erfolge auf objektiver Grundlageund sei ein objektives Kriterium“ 5 sie werde „an einemobjektiven, fiktiven Maßstab gemessen, nämlich derKunstfigur des Fachmannes“ 6 .Das ist jedoch ein logischer Widerspruch, denn etwasFiktives ist nie objektiv. Ohnehin sind alle Aussagen derSpruchstellen nur Zirkelschlüsse; ihre singulären ad-hoc-Entscheidungen sind keine Präjudizien und sie sind, wieschon Aristoteles uns lehrte, nicht induktiv zu verallgemeinern4 . Damit fallen auch alle Hypothesen, indenen „der Fachmann“ eine Rolle spielt, etwa die couldwould-Konstruktiondes EPA oder die alten, unbedarftenHilfskriterien 7 .Kurzum: Alle Aussagen sind bloß ermessensgemäße,subjektive (vom jeweiligen Beurteiler abhängige) Festsetzungen,sie sind nur subjektive Normierungsdefinitionen.IV.Gegen diese ablehnende Feststellung der erfinderischenTätigkeit wird eingewendet: Die erfinderische Tätigkeitsei nach der Rechtsprechung von Bundespatentgericht,Bundesgerichtshof, Beschwerdekammern und GroßerBeschwerdekammer des EPA „rein objektiv“ zu verstehen.Das ist freilich das untaugliche „Autoritäts-Argument“der Rhetorik, denn noch so glanzvolle Namenersetzen keinen Beweis. Zudem ist es wissenschaftlichbelanglos, wie jemand etwas „versteht“; wesentlich ist,was es „ist“.Weiterhin wird gesagt, „der Fachmann“ sei zwar eineFiktion, aber Fiktionen seien in Gesetzen durchausüblich. Worin liegt der Denkfehler? Eine Fiktion ist einAls-ob-Konstrukt, mit der man einen irrealen oderunwahrscheinlichen Sachverhalt als wahr postuliert. Ineinem Gesetz wird eine Fiktion formell „als ob real“unterstellt. Doch das ist ontologisch nur statthaft, wennes um Sachen geht. Dreht es sich dagegen um dieintellektuelle Fähigkeit eines Menschen, dann ist eineFiktion abwegig. Insbesondere „der Fachmann“, alsIrrealität, lässt sich so niemals zu einer realen, aussageundzeugnisfähigen natürlichen Person ontologischumfunktionieren 8 .V.Kein einziger der millionenfachen Fachleuten, der ineinem der zu hunderten zählenden technischen Fächerntätig ist, kann im Voraus sagen, ob, wann, wie undwodurch irgendein Kollege des Fachgebietes einebestimmte fachliche Leistung erbringen wird. Er kannan Hand objektiver technischer Daten nur objektiv feststellen,ob ein vorgelegtes Objekt einen technischenFortschritt zeitigt oder ob es zwar neu, aber sozio-ökonomischer9 Schrott oder Unsinn ist.Nicht eine vage erfinderische Tätigkeit, sondern dererzielte technische Fortschritt ist das primäre, das notwenigeund hinreichende objektive Merkmal einer Erfindung.Die objektive Realdefinition des Fortschritts wurdeschon früher aufgespürt, etwa seine Größenklassen,die Beziehungen zu den geistigen Leistungen oder eineWertzahl für die Größenklasse mit nur zwei objektivenZahlenwerten für die Gesamtwirkungen. 10,11 (Die „Neuheit“ist nur ein sekundäres, hinreichendes Merkmal) 12 .Das USA-Patent ist zwar auch an die irrealen „Fachmann“gebunden. Diese person having ordinary skill istaber nicht gleich dem esoterischen europäischen Allesbesser-Wisser.Daher werden nur etwa 10% der Anmeldungenverworfen, die das Bekannte oder das sozioökonomischtörichte Neue betreffen. Alles andere wirdzugelassen, vor allem auch das eklatant Nichttechnische.Die means-for-Ansprüche erlauben zudem jede Interpretation,etwa was „standardessentiell“ sei.Die Schweiz lässt offen, wem sich das „in naheliegender Weise ergibt“. Dort könnte man also mittelbarmit dem technischen Fortschritt arbeiten 11 .Das Patentgesetz der VR China kennt sehr wohl dentechnischen Fortschritt, denn der normierte „Erfindergeist“(nicht operabel) ist durch den normierten „bemerkenswertenFortschritt“ (operabel) gekennzeichnet.3 Ein technischer Prüfer/Richter ist ein Fachmann, der auf verwandten technischenGebieten einsetzbar ist, der spürsinnig ist und der interdisziplinärdenkt; er ist sachkundig für Analysen von unterschiedlichen technischenSachverhalten und für technisch-begriffliches Abstrahieren und juristischesSubsumieren. Er ist ein Generalist und kein Spezialist. Der nur Rechtskundigeist ein Nichtfachmann.4 Kumm, A. W.: Die Crux mit der erfinderischen Tätigkeit. ln epi Information,4/2011, S. 151.5 Aus einer Entscheidung von 1983 des EPA.6 z. B. Benkard, Patentgesetz, 10. Aufl., Beck 2006, S. 243.7 So schon Kumm, A. W.: Die Bewertung der erfinderischen Tätigkeit, einrational unlösbares Jahrhundert-Problem. ln: epi Information, 1/1998, S.23.(Auf einen Artikel von R. Teschemacher, epi Information, 3/1997, S. 25).8 Der „Durchschnittsfachmann“ ist auch nur ein statistisches Abstrakt derrealen Fachleute-Gesamtheit eines speziellen technischen Fachgebietes.9 Das ist ein treffender Ausdruck statt des altertümlichen „gewerblichanwendbar“.10 Vgl. Kumm, Altred W.: Inventionsmanagement 1995. ISBN 3-8248-0142-6.Dito: Vom Spezialisten zum Generalisten der Technik. 2003. ISBN3-89846-264-1.11 Kumm, A. W.: Die Crux mit der erfinderischen Tätigkeit und die schweizerischeChance ihrer operablen Bewertung. ln: epi Information, 1/2012, S. 22.12 Was technisch fortschrittlich ist, ist denknotwendig auch neu, aber ein Neuesist nicht unbedingt auch fortschrittlich.

Information 2/2012 Articles 49Der Fachmann: die notwendige Fiktion im SystemT. Fox (AT) 1Von den zahlreichen Rechtsfiktionen, die das EPÜ undVerfahren vor dem EPA strukturieren, ist die des Fachmannswohl die am häufigsten in Literatur und Rechtsprechungdiskutierte. Andere „bewußt gesetzte, falscheAnnahmen“ 2 wie die verschiedentlich ausgelöstenRücknahmefiktionen im Anmeldeverfahren vor dem EPAfordern offenbar weniger heraus als die Vorstellung einerPerson, die nichts weiter als Vorstellung bleibt.Dient der Fachmann der Vereinfachung der Rechtsanwendung?Wenn dem so wäre, ließe er sich vermutlichdurch andere Hilfsmittel ersetzen.Ist die erfinderische Tätigkeit eines Anmeldungsgegenstandesohne den Fachmann einschätzbar? Wennja, was ist dann mit den zahlreichen anderen Stellen desEPÜ, an denen der Fachmannbegriff eine Rolle spielt?Dies ist ein Plädoyer dafür, daß der Fachmann nichteiner einfacheren Rechtsanwendung dient oder ein willkürlichesHilfsmittel darstellt, sondern daß sein Begrifffür eine Einheitlichkeit des EPÜ sorgt.Um dies zu verdeutlichen und um den Zweck dieserFiktion besser erklären zu können, erscheint es sinnvoll,zunächst die Wegkreuzungen kenntlich zu machen, andenen bei der Anwendung des EPÜ der Fachmannangetroffen wird. Dies wird im folgenden getan, umanschließend anhand der Art, wie der Begriff zu seinenEigenschaften kommt, zu prüfen, welche allgemeineFunktion der Fachmann im Recht hat oder haben kann.Da er allseits als Fiktion bezeichnet wird, kann derFachmann keine reale Person sein. Wie dem AbschnittsD7 in der EPA-Publikation „Rechtsprechung“ zumBegriff des Fachmanns zu entnehmen ist, driften oderspezialisieren sich seine Eigenschaften mit der Zeit undmit den Entscheidungen, sein Nichtsein bleibt jedochkonstant. Doch selbst wenn in einem Einzelfall einmaleine Frau oder ein Mann anzutreffen wäre, der oder dietatsächlich jede geforderte Eigenschaft des Fachmannserfüllen würde (inkl. seiner Phantasielosigkeit trotzansonsten ungewöhnlich breiter Sprach- und Technikkenntnisse),wäre es einfach überflüssig, diese Person alsZeuge in einem Einspruchsverfahren zu befragen.Ebenso ist es überflüssig, auf natürliche Personen undihre Fähigkeiten und Fachkenntnisse zu verweisen, umvermeintlich zu zeigen, daß der Fachmannbegriff angesichtsder Realität widersprüchlich wäre; lebende Beispielesind schlicht wirkungslos für theoretische Begriffe.Ist aber einmal erlernt, daß der Fachmann ein reinerBegriff ist, so ist zu seinem Verständnis nicht mehr zusagen, als daß er ein Bündel von Eigenschaften ohneKondensationskern ist. Da es sich um keine Personhandelt, die uns im täglichen Leben oder anderswo alsschlüssiger Charakter gegenüberstehen soll, sind seine1 Europäpischer Patentanwalt, Schütz u. Partner, Wien; fox@brezialisten.org.2 Duden Fremdwörterbuch, Mannheim 1990, zur Bedeutung von „Fiktion“.Eigenschaften auch (fast) frei wählbar. Und so haben dieMerkmale des Fachmanns trotz seiner Virtualität bereitsKommentatoren dazu hingerissen, ihn als sehr merkwürdigenZeitgenossen zu bezeichnen. 3 Dies hat aber inder Rechtsanwendung keinerlei Auswirkung. Es ist nurverwunderlich, daß die ähnlichen Begriffe des informiertenBenutzers im Geschmacksmusterrecht oder derangesprochenen Verkehrskreise im Markenrecht keinederartigen Spekulationen auslösen, obwohl es gleichermaßenkünstliche Personengruppen sind. 4Die Literatur wagt es kaum, diese Fachmann-Stellenim EPÜ erschöpfend aufzuzählen. 5 Doch klar sind beispielsweisedie folgenden Orte: Nach Artikel 56 EPÜ darfeine Erfindung dem Fachmann angesichts des Standesder Technik nicht naheliegen, um als erteilbar beurteiltwerden zu können. Die Erfindung ist gemäß Artikel 83 sodeutlich und vollständig zu offenbaren, daß ein Fachmannsie ausführen kann. Das Kriterium der zulässigenÄnderung einer Patentanmeldung nach Artikel 123hängt ebenso vom Fachmann ab, da es an ihm unddem Umfang seines Wissens liegt, was noch unmittelbarund eindeutig in der ursprünglich eingereichten Fassungeiner europäischen Patentanmeldung enthalten ist undsomit hinzugefügt werden darf. 6Soweit die drei am häufigsten erkannten Stellen, dieden Fachmann involvieren. Doch hängt auch die Auslegungdes Artikel 54 von ihm ab: neuheitsschädlichkönnen Merkmale sein, die in einem Dokument desStandes der Technik nicht direkt enthalten sind, sofernsie der Fachmann nur mit seinem geistigen Rüstzeug,seinem Wissen und weiteren Fähigkeiten implizit miterfaßt. 7Derselbe Rückgriff erfolgt beim Vergleich einer europäischenAnmeldung mit ihrer vermeintlichen Prioritätsanmeldung,so daß wiederum in Zweifelsfällen derFachmann entscheidet, ob sich alle Merkmale desGegenstandes der Nachanmeldung unmittelbar undeindeutig aus dem Prioritätsdokument herausziehenlassen. 8Ganz ähnlich geht es, wie man sich leicht vorstellenkann, bei Teilanmeldungen zu. Die technischen Angabeneiner Teilanmeldung muß nicht die Allgemeinheit oderder Erfinder, sondern niemand anderes als der Fachmannauch aus der Stammanmeldung entnehmen können. 93 Robin Jacob, Der Fachmann, Sonderausgabe 1 zum ABl. EPA 2009, 83;Graham Ashley, Der Fachmann im Europäischen Patentübereinkommen,ebenda, 95.4 Der informierte Benutzer im Gemeinschaftsgeschmacksmusterrecht:Art. 6(1) und 10(1) sowie Präambel GemGMG.5 Graham Ashley, a. a.O., 94.6 Richtlinien für die Prüfung im EPA, April 2010 (kurz RiLi) C-VI, 5.3.1 und5.3.10; G 3/89 und G 11/91.7 siehe die Zusammenfassung bei Spangenberg in Singer/Stauder, EPÜ, Köln2010, S. 208ff.8 G2/98 zu Artikel 87 EPÜ.9 T 402/00, T 423/03.

50 Articles Information 2/2012Im Auslegungsprotokoll zu Artikel 69 EPÜ ist derFachmann wiederum direkt genannt, wenn es heißt,der Schutzbereich eines europäischen Patents erstreckesich zwar auf mehr als auf die wortgenaue Bedeutungder Ansprüche, aber wiederum auf weniger als das,„was sich dem Fachmann nach Prüfung der Beschreibungund der Zeichnungen als Schutzbegehren desPatentinhabers darstellt.“ Der Schutzbereich liegt vielmehrzwischen diesen beiden Polen. Die Fähigkeiten desFachmannes bestimmen einen dieser Pole, wodurch derSchutzbereich indirekt erweitert oder verringert wird,wenn sich ebenso die fachmännischen Fähigkeiten verbessernoder verschlechtern. Jedoch auch ohne Auslegungsprotokollkönnte man den Schutzbereich eineseuropäischen Patents direkt mithilfe des Fachmannbegriffsbestimmen, wie es beispielsweise bei deutschenPatenten bereits üblich ist. 10 Somit hängt Wohl, Weheund Wirkung eines europäischen Patents in allen Verfahrensteilenvom Fachmann ab: im Prüfungsverfahren,bei den Einspruchsgründen und der Begrenzung derÄnderungsmittel im Einspruchsverfahren, sowie bei derFestlegung des Schutzbereichs.Form, Klarheit und technische Auslegung der Ansprüchebringen erneut den Fachmann ins Spiel, weswegendie Erfüllung der Regel 43 auch zu den Bestimmungenzählt, die erst durch diese Kunstfigur zum Leben erwecktwerden. 11Die Klarheit einer Anmeldung insgesamt steht unterder Bedingung, daß die Ansprüche durch die Beschreibunggestützt sind. 12 Wer aber darüber entscheidet, obeine bestimmte Formulierung in der Beschreibung zurklaren Erläuterung der Bedeutung eines beanspruchtenMerkmals ausreicht, ist natürlich der Fachmann.Das EPÜ ist trotz rarer Nennung des Fachmanns vondiesem Konzept durchsetzt. In extremen Fällen hängtsogar die gewerbliche Anwendbarkeit einer Erfindungvom Begriff des Fachmanns ab: Sie muß technisch derartsolide sein, „daß für den Fachmann ersichtlich ist, daß ihrBeitrag zum Stand der Technik in eine praktischegewerbliche Verwertung münden kann (T 898/05).“ 13Somit kommt keines der Hauptkriterien der Patentierbarkeit(Neuheit, erfinderische Tätigkeit, gewerblicheAnwendbarkeit, Klarheit und ausreichende Offenbarung)ganz ohne fachmännische Hilfe aus.Damit nicht genug. In speziellen Zusammenhängenbedarf es fachmännischen Rats, ob biologisches Materialim Rahmen einer entsprechenden Anmeldung ausreichendschriftlich beschrieben werden kann und ob esalternativ frei zugänglich ist oder ob es doch lieber innatura hinterlegt werden sollte. 14Zuletzt eine weitere Nutzung der Fachmannsfiktion,nämlich als Figur, die sich das gleiche technische Gebietmit Prüfern des EPA teilt: Wenn im Kontext einer einzelnenkonkreten Erfindung Fachmänner auf mehrerentechnischen Gebieten angesprochen sind, können laut10 Rainer Schulte, PatG, Köln 1994, § 14, Randnr. 18.11 siehe RiLi C-III, 2.1 und 4.12 RiLi C-III, 6.3.13 RiLi C-IV, 5.4.14 R. 31EPÜ AO, RiLi C-II, 6.2.Prüfungrichtlinien auch entsprechend viele Prüfer, bzw.Prüfer auf den jeweils wichtigen technischen Gebietenbei der Recherche der Anmeldung erforderlich sein. 15Es ist festzuhalten, daß es eine verwunderlicheAbsichtslosigkeit wäre, den Fachmann an derart vielenStellen des EPÜ eine Rolle spielen zu lassen.Die Attribute des Fachmanns werden meist in derRechtsprechung festgelegt. Manche sind so speziell,daß sie in ihrer Bedeutung kaum mehr als über eineneinzelnen Streitfall entscheiden.Erhält der Fachmann im Laufe sich entwickelnderRechtsauslegung weitere Eigenschaften, dann geltensie nicht nur in Zusammenhang mit der anlaßgebendenGesetzesstelle, sondern überall (wenn in einem weiterenkonkreten Fall nicht besondere Gründe dagegensprechensollten). Nochmals die bekannte Teamfähigkeit:wenn die erfinderische Tätigkeit eines Gegenstandesan einer Arbeitsgruppe von Fachleuten gemessen werdenkann, so kann auch die unzulässige Erweiterung(einer beliebigen anderen Anmeldung) oder die Bestimmungdes Schutzbereiches eines Patents von einemjeweils angemessenen Fachteam abhängen.Darin besteht keine Notwendigkeit. Die Gesetzgebungkönnte sich gleichermaßen dazu entschließen,eine bestimmte Eigenschaft des Fachmanns nur aufeinen bestimmten Artikel anwendbar zu halten. Daßdies nicht geschehen ist, kann man auch so auslegen,daß dies Absicht ist, und man bewußt keine Vervielfältigungvon Fachmännern zuläßt. Beispielsweise ist vermiedenworden, dem Fachmann in Zusammenhang mitder vollständigen Offenbarung (Artikel 83) ein Auslegungswissenzu geben, das ihm dann im Rahmender zulässigen Erweiterung (Artikel 123) nicht mehrzur Verfügung steht. Bei der Konkurrenz der beidenArtikel hat man es vorgezogen, statt zweierlei fachmännischerMaßstäbe und somit der Erschaffung zweierverschiedener Fachmannbegriffe lieber zwei Offenbarungstypenzu definieren: Zur Erfüllung des Artikel 83 istdie Erfindung für den Fachmann „deutlich und vollständig“zu offenbaren, während dem Artikel 123(2)genüge getan ist, wenn die Anmeldung nichts enthält,was dem Fachmann ursprünglich „unmittelbar und eindeutig“gelehrt war. Deutlichkeit und Vollständigkeitbedeuten nicht dasselbe wie Unmittelbarkeit und Eindeutigkeit.Die zweite Offenbarungsart ist enger auszulegen.16 Der Fachmann könnte demnach durchauseinen Gegenstand als reproduzierbar offenbart in einerAnmeldung herauslesen, jedoch das für ihn implizitOffenbarte dürfte nicht in einer nachträglichen Explikationeingefügt werden. Dies erzeugt keinen Widerspruchoder einen anderen Reparaturbedarf im EPÜ, sondern istschlicht zur Kenntnis zu nehmen. Auf diese Weise entstehenaber zwei Offenbarungsbegriffe – unter Beibehaltungdesselben Fachmanns.Es gilt offenbar der unausgesprochene Grundsatz,wonach es nur einen Begriff des Fachmanns geben darf.Der Vermutung, daß sich die Begründer des EPÜ zu einer15 vgl. T 57/86, T 460/87, T 99/89 und RiLi B-I, 2.16 siehe Blumer in Singer/Stauder, EPÜ, Köln 2010, Art. 123, Randnr. 12,S. 1040f.

Information 2/2012 Articles 51unteilbaren Fiktion des Fachmanns aus Gründen derEinfachheit entschlossen hätten und weiterhin entschließenwürden, ist streng zu widersprechen. Das EPÜ unddie umliegenden Rechtsquellen sind seit 1973 kontinuierlichkomplexer geworden, deutlich auch wieder mitder Einführung des EPÜ 2000 oder der Regelung vonTeilanmeldungen. Dem Ziel der Einfachheit werden stetsandere Ziele vorgezogen, sicher auch ehrwürdige wieu. a. eine gesteigerte Gerechtigkeit für Anmelder, Rechteinhaberusw. 17 Folglich wird wohl niemand mit demEinfachheitsargument für die Einsamkeit des Fachmannsstimmen.Solange sich alle fachmännischen Eigenschaftenzusammengenommen nicht widersprechen, kann derFachmann für jede Rechtsstelle z. T. verschiedene Eigenschaftenhaben und bleibt doch derselbe Fachmann.Beispielsweise kann die Eigenschaft, Routineversuchedurchführen zu können und damit die Bedingung dererfinderischen Tätigkeit nach Artikel 56 zu verschärfen,schlummern, während derselbe Fachmann ein Dokumentdes Standes der Technik auf indirekt genannteMerkmale prüft. Beide Fähigkeiten – Versuchstätigkeitund das Mitlesenkönnen nichtgenannter Dinge – bestehengleichzeitig widerspruchsfrei im Fachmannbegriffund werden nur aktiviert, falls angemessen. Niemandwird daran Anstoß nehmen.Es bei einem Fachmannbegriff zu belassen, hat einenbesonderen Effekt: er sorgt für einen engeren undkonsistenten Zusammenhang ansonsten getrennterBestimmungen des EPÜ. Der Fachmann vereinheitlichtdas EPÜ zu einem organischen Ganzen. Es ist ja auchsinnvoll, das gesamte Patentierungsverfahren nur einerEinrichtung gegenüberzutellen, welche den Stand derTechnik und seine Grenzen gleichermaßen widerspiegelt.Der Fachmann als halb menschenähnliches undhalb enzyklopädisches Geschöpf erweist sich dabei alsein sehr wirkungsmächtiger Maßstab. Auch anderewiederkehrende Termini wie etwa die Begriffe „Neuheit“oder „Stand der Technik“ dienen dem einheitlichenZusammenhang des EPÜ, sofern sie an verschiedenenAnwendungsorten denselben Begriffsinhalt aufweisen.Es ist daher unter anderem richtig, bei weiterer Harmonisierungnationaler Patentrechte in materieller Hinsichtdies mit dem Fokus auf den Fachmannbegriff zutun, wie bereits vorgeschlagen wurde. 18 Man kann wohlsagen, daß sich zwei Patentgesetze dann in hohem Maßgleichen, wenn sie auf einem übereinstimmenden Fachmannbegrifffußen und ihn an denselben Stellen zurAnwendung bringen. Auch richtig ist es, diesen Begriffdetailiert zu kommentieren, da er die unauffällige Klammerdes europäischen und vermutlich fast aller nationalerPatentgesetze ist.Der Rückgriff auf den Fachmann mag auch anderenZwecken dienen, wie etwa didaktischen Gründen, einerVereinfachung hinsichtlich der Anschaulichkeit mancherUmstände oder der Verkürzung eines Arguments. 19Diese Ziele sind jedoch leicht durch alternative Einzelkriterienoder Kunstgriffe ersetzbar, weswegen die einheitsstiftendeWirkung als primäre Aufgabe des Fachmannsbestehen bleibt.Zudem ist das EPÜ durch den Fachmann austariert, daeine theoretische Veränderung seiner Eigenschaften aneiner ersten Stelle zu einer sinnvollen Verschiebung andamit vernetzten anderen Orten des EPÜ führt. Istbeispielsweise das Wissen des Fachmannes als umfangreicherals bisher anzusetzen – was z. B. durch Rechtsprechungzur Auslegung des Offenbarungsgehalteseines Dokuments des Standes der Technik nachArt. 54(2) motiviert sein könnte –, dann sind in der Folgeanzumeldende Gegenstände entsprechend wenigergenau zu beschreiben: schließlich liest der angesprocheneFachmann nun mehr aus einer knapperenBeschreibung heraus. Es wird aber auch für alle angemeldetenGegenstände schwerer, die Bedingung dererfinderischen Tätigkeit zu erfüllen, denn der Fachmannwürde mehr Merkmale im Stand der Technik erkennenals bisher. Sofern die weiteren Randbedingungen gleichbleiben, sollten daher in diesem Gedankenbeispiel wenigerPatente erteilt werden. Einmal erteilte Patentegenössen jedoch eine höhere Schutzwirkung, weil wiederumder Fachmann (wie oben ausgeführt) diese beeinflußt.Man stelle sich vor, es wäre umgekehrt: eineManipulation des Fachmann-Konzepts führte zu einergeringeren Zahl von Patenten, die dann auch noch einengeringeren Schutzumfang hätten. Der Wert eines durchschnittlicheneuropäischen Patents würde auf einenSchlag abnehmen. Doch analog wie in diesem Beispielfedern sich die vernetzten Funktionen des Fachmanns imgesamten EPÜ ab.Wäre dem nicht so, müßten Teile des EPÜ neu konzipiertwerden – oder aus einem Begriff des Fachmannsmüßten viele gemacht werden, etwa multipliziert ineinen FM56, FM83, FM123 usw., was wiederum derEinheitlichkeit des EPÜ nicht förderlich wäre. So bleibt esbei einem einzigen Fachmann, der mit seinem unübersichtlichenEigenschaftsbündel wie eine unheimlicheKreatur anmutet. Aber wie Adorno schon sagt: „JedesKunstwerk ist eine abgedungene Untat.“ 2017 Teilweise vereinfachte Anmeldevoraussetzungen oder eine einfachereBenennung von Mitgliedstaaten widersprechen der globalen gesetzlichenVerkomplexierung der dahinterstehenden Regelungen nicht.18 S. Gedeon, Der fiktive Fachmann im Patentrecht, epi Information 2011,76-81.19 Bernard Carboz, Der Fachmann, Sonderausgabe 1 zum ABl. EPA 2009, 91.20 Theodor W. Adorno, Minima Moralia, Frankfurt am Main 1951, 201.

52 Articles Information 2/2012European Inventor Award,Press release, EPOEuropean Inventor Award presented to outstandinginventors from Germany, France, Denmark and Australia• European Patent Office pays tribute to ground-breakinginventions in laser eye surgery, fuel cell technology,hepatitis B therapy, hearing aid devices and wirelesstelecommunications• EPO President Benoît Battistelli: “With their brilliantinventions, this year's laureates have created greateconomic value and thousands of jobs.”Copenhagen, 14 th June 2012 – The European PatentOffice (EPO) today honoured outstanding inventors fortheir contribution to social, economic and technologicalprogress with the presentation of the European InventorAward (EIA) – Europe's most prestigious prize for innovation.The Danish Crown Prince and Princess, around350 economic and political decision makers, researchers,scientists and intellectual property specialists attendedthe award ceremony at the Royal Danish Playhouse inCopenhagen.The EIA is presented in five categories: “Industry”,“Research”, “Small and Medium-sized Enterprises(SMEs)”, “Non-European countries”, and “Lifetimeachievement”. The five winners of the European InventorAward 2012 come from Germany (2), France, Denmarkand Australia, and represent the fields of ophthalmology,fuel cell technology, medical research, medicaltechnology and telecommunications.“With their brilliant inventions, this year's laureateshave created great economic value and thousands ofjobs. Above all, they have improved people's lives”, saidEPO President Benoît Battistelli. “The EIA pays tribute tothese creative and entrepreneurial minds for their significantcontribution to technological progress, socialdevelopment and economic growth.”Winners of the European Inventor Award 2012In the “Lifetime achievement” category, the award wentto Prof. Josef Bille from the University of Heidelberg inGermany, who has filed almost 100 patents in the field ofophthalmology and paved the way in the field of lasereye corrections. Prof. Bille's ground-breaking inventionof wavefront technology for laser eye surgery enablesthe mapping of aberrations in the iris and thus helpscorrect short-sightedness, long-sightedness, and astigmatismfor millions of people worldwide.In the “Industry” category, the EPO honoured theDanish team Jan Tøpholm, Søren Westermann andSvend Vitting Andersen of Widex for developing a computer-aidedmethod to manufacture individually-fitted,comfortable hearing-aid devices. The unique stereolithographicmanufacturing method CAMISHA (Computer-AidedManufacturing of Individual Shells for HearingAids) has revolutionised hearing aids since itsintroduction. The majority of all hearing aid devicesworldwide now use this technology.The award in the “Research” category went to Dr.Gilles Gosselin and Prof. Jean-Louis Imbach at the FrenchNational Center for Scientific Research (CNRS) and Dr.Marti L. Bryant who developed an effective drug for thetreatment of hepatitis B that has now been successfullycommercialised. One hundred times more infectiousthan HIV, hepatitis B is a particularly persistent diseasethat chronically affects 350 million people worldwide.Dr. Manfred Stefener (Germany), founder of SmartFuel Cell AG (SFC), Oliver Freitag and Dr. Jens Müllerreceived the award in the “SMEs” category for thedevelopment of the first fuel cell for portable use, theso-called direct methanol fuel cell or DMFC. Today, thesefuel cells are used in a vast array of applications, includingtraffic management, security and surveillance systemsas well as to power isolated environmental datastations. They are also recognised for their environmentalfriendliness.In the “Non European Countries” category the EPOhonoured Dr. John O' Sullivan, Graham Daniels, Dr.Terence Percival, Diethelm Ostry and John Deane fromAustralia who laid the foundation for today's wirelessnetworking technology (Wi-Fi). The researchers from theCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial ResearchOrganisation (CSIRO) created a technology that madethe wireless LAN fast and robust so it would be aspowerful as the cabled solutions of the time. Theirtechnology forms the standard today of almost all wirelessnetworks.…For comprehensive and detailed information (text,facts & figures, photo, TV footage) on the inventions,their authors and the corporations involved,please visit www.epo-presschannel.com.For more information on EPO and its activities,please visit our website www.epo.org.Press contactOswald SchröderRainer OsterwalderSpokespersonDeputy spokespersonTel: +49 89 2399 1800 Tel: +49 89 23 99 1820Mobil: +49 163 839 9668 Mobil: +49 177 459 4228Email: oschroeder@epo.org Email: rosterwalder@epo.org

Information 2/2012 Information from the Secretariat 53Disziplinarorgane und AusschüsseDisciplinary bodies and Committees · Organes de discipline et CommissionsDisziplinarrat (epi) Disciplinary Committee (epi) Commission de discipline (epi)AT – Wolfgang Poth°°BE – Thierry DebledBG – Vesel PendichevCH – Raymond ReutelerCZ – Michael FischerDE – Werner Fröhling°DK – Susanne HøibergEE – Sirje KahuES – Inigo Elosegui de la PenaFI – Christian WesterholmFR – Bernard RougemontGB – John GrayDisziplinarausschuss (EPA/epi)epi-MitgliederGR – Athanasios TsimikalisHR – Dina Korper ZemvaHU – József MarkóIE – Shane SmythIS – Arni Vilhjalmsson**IT – Bruno MuracaLI – Paul Rosenich*LT – Vitalija BanaitieneLU – Pierre KihnLV – Ileana FloreaMC – Eric AugardeMK – Blagica VeskovskaDisciplinary Board (EPO/epi)epi MembersBE – Georges Leherte DE – Walter DabringhausGB – James BoffBeschwerdekammer inDisziplinarangelegenheiten (EPA/epi)epi-MitgliederDE – Nanno LenzDK – Ejvind ChristiansenCH –DE – Michael Maikowski*FR – Jean-Loup LagetDisciplinaryBoard of Appeal (EPO/epi)epi MembersMT – Luigi SansoneNL – Arjen HooiveldNO – Elin AndersonPL – Alicja RogozinskaPT – Antonio J. Dias MachadoRO – Calin PopRS – Dejan BogdanovicSE – Lennart KarlströmSI – Janez KraljicSK – Tomas HörmannSM – Giampaolo AgazzaniTR – Tuna YurtsevenConseil de discipline (OEB/epi)Membres de l’epiFR – Bruno QuantinChambre de recoursen matière disciplinaire (OEB/epi)Membres de l’epiES – Pedro Sugrañes Moliné GB – Terry JohnsonFR – Pierre GendraudNL – Bart van WezenbeekGB – Huw George Hallyboneepi-Finanzen epi Finances Finances de l’epiAndré jr. BraunGB – Timothy Powell**LU – Jean BeisselIT – Salvatore Bordonaro PL – Ewa MalewskaLT – Marius JasonSE – Klas NorinGeschäftsordnung By-Laws Règlement intérieurBE – Jasmin Jantschy** DE – Dieter Speiser*GB – Terry JohnsonFR – Pascal MoutardStandesregelnOrdentliche MitgliederAT – Friedrich SchweinzerBE – Philippe OverathBG – Neyko NeykovCH – Regula RüediCZ – Dobroslav MusilDE – Holger GeitzDK – Leif RoerboelEE – Raivo KoitelES – Juan Antonio MorgadesFI – Juhani KupiainenProfessional ConductFull MembersFR – Jean-Robert Callon de LamarckGB – Timothy Powell*HR – Aleksandar BijelicHU – Mihaly LantosIE – Michael LuceyIS – Thorlakur JonssonIT – Paolo GerliLT – Virgina DraugelieneLU – Henri KihnLV – Sandra KumacevaConduite professionnelleMembres titulairesNL – Hans BottemaNO – Per FlugePL – Ludwik HudyPT – César de Bessa MonteiroRO – Lucian EnescuSE – Ronny JansonSI – Jure MarnSK – Dagmar CechvalovaSM – Giuseppe MasciopintoTR – Kazim DündarStellvertreter Substitutes SuppléantsAT – Eberhard PisoCH – Paul Georg MauéCZ – Vitezslav ZakDE – Rainer KasseckertDK – Anne SchouboeEE – Jürgen ToomeES – Anna BarlocciFI – Jonna SahlinFR – Philippe ConanGB – Simon WrightHR – Albina DlacicIE – Brian O'NeillIS – Einar FridrikssonIT – Andrea MariettiLT – Vitalija BanaitieneLU – Romain LambertNL – John PetersNO – Lorentz SelmerPL – Miroslaw KlarRO – Gheorghe BucsaSE – Stina Sjögren PaulssonSI – Marjanca Golmajer Zima*Chair/ **Secretary°Vice-Chair/°°Vice-Secretary

54 Information from the Secretariat Information 2/2012Europäische Patentpraxis European Patent Practice Pratique du brevet européenAL – Vladimir NikaAT – Werner KovacAT – Andreas VögeleBE – Ludivine CoulonBE – Francis Leyder*BG – Ivanka PakidanskaBG – Violeta ShentovaCH – Ernst IrnigerCH – Paul Georg MauéCY – Christos A. TheodoulouCZ – Ivana JirotkovaCZ – Jiri MalusekDE – Ingo HeinzelmannDE – Heike Vogelsang-WenkeDK – Eva CarlssonDK – Soeren PedersenEE – Jaak OstratEE – Margus SarapES – Enrique ArmijoES – Luis-Alfonso Durán MoyaFI – Marjut HonkasaloFI – Arja WeckmanBerufliche QualifikationOrdentliche MitgliederAL – Eno DodbibaAT – Friedrich Schweinzer**BE – Nele D'HalleweynBG – Radislava KossevaCH – Wolfgang BernhardtCY – Christos A. TheodoulouCZ – Jiri AnderaDE – Felix LetzelterDK – Pia StahrEE – Tónu NelsasES – Francisco Saez GraneroFR – Jacques BauvirFR – Jean-Robert Callon de LamarckGB – Jim BoffGB – Chris MercerGR – Manolis Samuelides°HR – Tomislav HadzijaHR – Gordana TurkaljHU – Zsolt LengyelHU – Zsolt SzentpéteriIE – Olivia CatesbyIE – Denis McCarthyIS – Einar Fridriksson°°IS – Ragnheidur SigurdardottirIT – Francesco MacchettaIT – Micaela ModianoLI – Christoph GyajaLI – Roland WildiLT – Ausra PakenieneLT – Jurga PetniunaiteLU – Sigmar Lampe°LU – Philippe Ocvirk**LV – Jevgenijs FortunaLV – Alexander SmirnovProfessional QualificationFull MembersFI – Tomi KonkonenFR – Francis FernandezGB – John GowshallHR – Tomislav PejcinovicHU – Dóra TepfenhártIE – Conor BoyceIS – Sigurdur IngvarssonIT – Paolo Rambelli*LI – Susanne KaminskiLT – Otilija KlimaitieneLU – Didier LecomteLV – Edvards LavrinovicsMC – Michael FleuchausMC – Günther SchmalzNL – Arnt AalbersNL – Ruurd JorritsmaNO – André BergNO – Kristine RekdalPL – Katarzyna LewickaPL – Ewa MalewskaPT – Pedro Alves MoreiraPT – Fernando Ferreira MagnoRO – Daniella NicolaescuRO – Doina TulucaSE – Carl CarlssonSE – Anita SkeppstedtSI – Bojan IvancicSK – Marta MajlingovaSK – Robert PorubcanSM – Antonio MarosciaSM – Andrea PerronaceTR – Hülya CayliTR – Aydin DerisQualification professionnelleMembres titulairesMK – Valentin PepeljugoskiNL – Freek SmitNO – Per BergPL – Piotr MalcherekPT – Isabel FrancoRO – Cosmina-Catrinel FierascuSE – Martin HolmbergSI – Antonija FlakSK – Josef KertészSM – Davide PetrazTR – Alev YavuzcanStellvertreter Substitutes SuppléantsAT – Herwig MargottiBE – Bart Van Den HazelBG – Vesel PendichevCH – Michael LiebetanzCZ – Irena LangrovaDE – Gabriele AhrensDK – Bo Hammer JensenES – Ismael IgartuaFI – Terhi NykänenFR – Jérôme CollinGB – Gary WhitingHU – Imre RavaditsIE – Seán HarteIS – Gunnar HardarsonIT – Isabella FerriLI – Anke AllwardtLT – Aurelija SidlauskieneLU – Mathis BrückLV – Valentina SergejevaExamination Board Members on behalf of the epiNL – Bart van WezenbeekNO – Eirik RøhmenPL – Adam PawlowskiPT – José de SampaioRO – Mihaela TeodorescuSE – Christer JönssonSI – Zlata RosSM – Andrea PerronaceTR – Ayse Ünal ErsönmezDE – Martina Winter FR – Marc NévantGB – Ian HarrisNL – Martin Hatzmann*Chair/ **Secretary°Vice-Chair/°°Vice-Secretary

Information 2/2012 Information from the Secretariat 55Biotechnologische Erfindungen Biotechnological Inventions Inventions en biotechnologieAT – Albin SchwarzBE – Ann De Clercq*BG – Stanislava StefanovaCH – Dieter WächterCZ – Roman HakDE – Günter KellerDK – Anne SchouboeFI – Sisko Knuth-LehtolaFR – Anne DesaixGB – Simon Wright**EPA-FinanzenOrdentliche MitgliederHR – Tihomir DragunHU – Arpad PethöIE – Anna-Louise HallyIS – Thorlakur JonssonIT – Olga CapassoLI – Burkhard BogensbergerLT – Liudmila GerasimovicLU – Pierre KihnLV – Valentina SergejevaNL – Bart SwinkelsEPO FinancesFull MembersNO – Liv ThoresenPL – Jadwiga SitkowskaPT – Alberto CanelasRO – Cristina PopaSE – Niklas MattssonSI – Mojca BencinaSK – Katarína Makel'ováSM – Maria PrimiceriTR – Ayse Ildes ErdemFinances OEBMembres titulairesDE – Walter Dabringhaus FR – Pierre GendraudGB – Jim Boff*IE – Lindsay CaseyStellvertreter Substitutes SuppléantsIT – Alessandra Longoni NL – Erik Bartelds PL – Ewa MalewskaHarmonisierungOrdentliche MitgliederBE – Francis Leyder**CH – Axel BraunHarmonizationFull MembersDE – Lothar SteilingFR – Philippe ConanIT – Filippo SantiHarmonisationMembres titulairesGB – John D. Brown*SE – Nils EkströmStellvertreter Substitutes SuppléantsBG – Natasha AndreevaFI – Veli-Matti KärkkäinenStreitrechtOrdentliche MitgliederAT – Werner KovacBE – Pieter VandersteenBG – Ivanka PakidanskaCH – Peter Thomsen**CY – Christos A. TheodoulouCZ – Michal GuttmannDE – Matthias WagnerDK – Nicolai KanvedEE – Mart KoppelES – Enrique ArmijoFI – Kirsikka EtuahoFR – Axel Casalonga*IT – Stefano GibertiLI – Anke AllwardtLitigationFull MembersGB – Edward Lyndon-StanfordHR – Mladen VukmirHU – Ferenc Török°IE – Stephen MurnaghanIS – Gunnar HardarsonIT – Giuseppe ColucciLI – Bernd-Günther HarmannLT – Vilija ViesunaiteLU – Mathis BrückLV – Voldemars OsmansPL – Marek BeslerSM – Paolo FerrieroContentieuxMembres titulairesMC – Günther SchmalzNL – Leonardus SteenbeekNO – Haakon Thue LiePL – Lech BuryPT – Nuno CruzRO – Ileana FloreaSE – Stina Sjögren PaulssonSI – Nina DrnovsekSK – Vladimir NeuschlSM – Gian Giuseppe MasciopintoTR – Aydin DerisStellvertreter Substitutes SuppléantsAT – Harald NemecCZ – Eva HalaxovaDE – Gabriele MohslerDK – Ejvind ChristiansenES – Inigo EloseguiFI – Arja WeckmanFR – Pierre GendraudGB – Terry JohnsonHR – Sanja VukinaIE – Triona WalsheIS – Einar FridrikssonIT – Antonella De GregoriLI – Roland WildiLT – Ausra PakenieneLU – Valérie MelletNL – Paul ClarksonNO – Kari SimonsenPL – Anna KorbelaRO – Dan PuscasuSE – Lars EstreenSK – Katarina Bad'urováTR – Serra Coral*Chair/ **Secretary°Vice-Chair/°°Vice-Secretary

56 Information from the Secretariat Information 2/2012Redaktionsausschuss Editorial Committee Commission de RédactionAT – Walter Holzer DE – Albert WiedemannFR – Thierry SchuffeneckerGB –Terry JohnsonOnline Communications CommitteeDE – Ludger EckeyDK – Peter IndahlFI – Antero Virkkala*FR – Catherine MénèsGB – John GrayIE – David Brophy**IT – Luciano BosottiNL – Johan van der VeerRO – Doina GreavuPatentdokumentationOrdentliche MitgliederPatent DocumentationFull MembersDocumentation brevetsMembres titulairesAT – Birgitta Gassner DK – Peter Indahl*/**FI – Tord LangenskiöldIE – Brian O’NeillStellvertreter Substitutes SuppléantsFR – Jean-Robert Callon de Lamarck GB – John Gray NL – Bart van WezenbeekInterne RechnungsprüferOrdentliche MitgliederInternal AuditorsFull MembersCommissaires aux Comptes internesMembres titulairesCH – Hansjörg Kley FR – Philippe ConanStellvertreter Substitutes SuppléantsDE – Thomas Zinke LI – Bernd-Günther HarmannWahlausschuss Electoral Committee Commission pour les électionsCH – Heinz Breiter CH – Markus Müller IS – Arni VilhjalmssonStanding Advisory Committee before the EPO (SACEPO)epi-Delegierte epi Delegates Délégués de l’epiBE – Francis LeyderDE – Gabriele Leißler-GerstlFI – Antero VirkkalaGB – Jim BoffGB – Chris MercerGB – Simon WrightIT – Luciano BosottiLU – Sigmar LampeNL – Antonius TangenaRO – Mihaela TeodorescuSACEPO Working Party RulesBE – Francis Leyder GB – Chris Mercer LU – Sigmar LampeSACEPO Working Party GuidelinesDE – Gabriele Leißler-Gerstl DK – Anette Hegner GR – Manolis Samuelides*Chair/ **Secretary

Vorstand / Board / BureauPräsident / President / PrésidentNL – Antonius TangenaVize-Präsidenten / Vice-Presidents / Vice-PrésidentsDE – Gabriele Leißler-GerstlRO – Mihaela TeodorescuGeneralsekretär / Secretary General / Secrétaire GénéralPT – João Pereira da CruzStellvertretender Generalsekretär /Deputy Secretary General / Secrétaire Général AdjointCH – Michael LiebetanzSchatzmeister / Treasurer / TrésorierBE – Claude QuintelierStellvertretender Schatzmeister / Deputy TreasurerTrésorier AdjointCZ – František KaniaMitglieder / Members / MembresAL – Vladimir NikaAT – Friedrich SchweinzerBG – Natasha AndreevaCY – Christos A. TheodoulouDE – Lothar SteilingDK – Bo Hammer JensenEE – Margus SarapES – Luis-Alfonso Durán MoyaFI – Marjut HonkasaloFR – Jacques BauvirFR – Laurent NussGB – Edward Lyndon-StanfordGB – Simon WrightGR – Vassiliki BakatselouHR – Davor BoškovićHU – Ádám SzentpéteriIE – Lindsay CaseyIS – Thorlakur JonssonIT – Micaela ModianoLI – Burkhard BogensbergerLT – Reda ZabolieneLU – Bernd KutschLV – Jevgenijs FortunaMC – Günther SchmalzMK – Valentin PepeljugoskiMT – Luigi SansoneNO – Dag ThranePL – Anna Slominska-DziubekRS – Slobodan PetosevicSE – Lars EstreenSI – Gregor MacekSK – Dagmar CechvalováSM – Andrea TiburziTR – Selda Arkan

epi / P.O. Box 26 01 12 / 80058 Munich, Germany