Les absents ont toujours tort ! (et le tort tue...)

De retour après un petit séjour à l'étranger, voici aujourd'hui une décision rendue il y a déjà quelques mois, mais qui illustre le pouvoir dont la Chambre de recours dispose, en particulier dans les procédures ex-parte.

Il s'agit d'un recours contre la décision de la division d'examen de rejeter la demande de brevet pour manque d'activité inventive. Dans son mémoire, la demanderesse a soumis un nouveau jeu de revendications, argumenté en faveur de l'activité inventive, et requis la tenue d'une procédure orale.

La Chambre a fixé une date pour la procédure orale. Dans sa communication selon l'art.15(1) RPCR, la Chambre a indiqué qu'elle n'était pas convaincue par les arguments de la demanderesse, et soulevait une infraction à l'art.123(2) CBE.

La demanderesse n'a pas répondu à cette communication et a explicitement renoncé à sa demande de procédure orale. La Chambre décide de maintenir la procédure orale, ce à quoi la demanderesse répond qu'elle n'y assistera pas.

Au final, lors de la procédure orale tenue, donc, en présence de la seule Chambre, la demande est rejetée pour... manque de clarté (art.84 CBE) !

Le manque de clarté n'ayant jusqu'alors pas été évoqué, se pose la question du respect du droit d'être entendu...

En substance, la Chambre rappelle que la communication selon l'art.15(1) RPCR n'a pas a être exhaustive. Dans le cas de procédures ex-parte, d'autres arguments peuvent être évoqués lors de la procédure orale. Lorsque la demanderesse renonce à participer à la procédure orale, elle renonce également à son droit d'être entendu concernant les éléments ne pouvant être considérés comme la prenant par surprise.

On ne sais bien sûr pas si la demanderesse portait un intérêt ou non au maintient de la demande (probablement pas vu son renoncement à assister à la procédure orale).

On sent quand même que la Chambre tente de se racheter de son "mauvais coup" en achevant la demande à l'aide de l'art.123(2) CBE qui, lui, a été évoqué dans la communication selon l'art.15(1) CBE...

2.1 In the present case, when preparing the communication pursuant to Article 15(1) RPBA the Board did not raise the issue of Article 84 EPC 1973. Nevertheless, when reconsidering the case in preparation for the oral proceedings the Board noted that Article 84 EPC 1973 should indeed be addressed in the oral proceedings due to the fact that, when re-reading claim 1 on file, the feature "orthogonally polarized antenna array (12, 13, 14, 15) to provide spatial diversity to the housing" appeared to lack clarity and support by the description.

As already stated, the representative of the appellant did not attend the oral proceedings. The question thus arises whether the present decision may cite the new ground of Article 84 EPC 1973 against the grant of a patent without contravening the principle of the right to be heard (Article 113(1) EPC 1973).

2.1.2 Decision G 0010/93 (OJ 1995, 172)

[...] It follows from this decision that in the present case the Board has the power to enforce any grounds against the grant of a patent independently of those put forward by the examining division in examination proceedings.

C'est sûr, la Chambre peut introduire de nouveaux motifs !

2.1.3 Rule 115(2) EPC and Article 15(3) RPBA (Article 11(3) RPBA 2003)

Rule 115(2) EPC provides that "If a party duly summoned to oral proceedings before the European Patent Office does not appear as summoned, the proceedings may continue without that party."

[...]

The explanatory notes to this Article of the RPBA (CA/133/02 dated 12 November 2002, page 20) state, in particular, that "This provision does not contradict the principle of the right to be heard pursuant to Article 113(1) EPC since that Article only affords the opportunity to be heard and, by absenting itself from the oral proceedings, a party gives up that opportunity."

Ce qui signifie, dit autrement, que les absents ont toujours tort...

2.1.5 Jurisprudence of the boards of appeal

It is established jurisprudence of the boards of appeal that an appellant which submits amended claims before the oral proceedings and subsequently does not attend these proceedings should not be surprised by a decision based on grounds which might be enforced against such claims in its absence (T 0991/07, Reasons, 2; T 1704/06, Reasons, 7; T 0546/08, Reasons, 2). In these decisions, it is emphasized that the purpose of oral proceedings is to give a party the opportunity to present its case. However, the party gives up this opportunity if it does not attend the oral proceedings (T 0546/08, Reasons, 2.2).

2.1.6 In view of the foregoing, the following conclusions are drawn.

In ex parte appeal proceedings a board has the power to enforce any grounds for refusal of an application, in particular grounds which the examining division did not consider at all or held to be satisfied (G 0010/93). Said grounds will be communicated to the appellant in writing, for example with a communication under Article 15(1) RPBA, and/or orally during scheduled oral proceedings.

The board's communication, however, has a preliminary character and does not have to be exhaustive. Thus, should the board, when reconsidering a case shortly before the oral proceedings in preparation thereof, identify new grounds for refusal of the application that were not mentioned in its previous communication, said new grounds will have to be discussed during the oral proceedings, the aim of which is not a simple repetition of what was already submitted in writing.

In ex parte appeal proceedings, if a duly summoned appellant does not attend the scheduled oral proceedings, the board, in view of the principle of procedural economy, shall not be obliged to delay its decision by reason only of the appellant's absence at the oral proceedings (Article 15(3) RPBA). Due to its absence, the appellant waives the opportunity to present its comments on new grounds which were not mentioned in the communication under Article 15(1) RPBA but are decisive for the decision. In such a case, the board's decision dealing with said new grounds, on which the appellant has not presented its comments, does not contravene the principle of the right to be heard (Article 113(1) EPC 1973).

Maintenant, la Chambre décide d'achever la demande à coup de 123(2), comme si elle n'assumait pas totalement le "mauvais coup" qu'elle venait de jouer à la demanderesse.

3. Article 123(2) EPC

3.1 The Board is aware of the fact that the above finding that claim 1 according to the appellant's request does not meet the requirements of Article 84 EPC 1973 is sufficient for concluding that the request is not allowable. As already stated above, the present decision does not contravene the principle of the right to be heard despite the introduction of Article 84 EPC 1973 only at the oral proceedings.

Nevertheless, for the sake of argument the Board holds it appropriate to deal with the further ground according to Article 123(2) EPC, especially in view of the conclusion drawn below in this respect. These additional remarks are made in view of the peculiarity of the present case that the Board's communication pursuant to Article 15(1) RPBA mentioned inter alia Article 123(2) EPC but not Article 84 EPC 1973. In the following assessment, claim 1 has been interpreted in the manner referred to in paragraph 2.2 above.

 T 1367/09