ACT_555899/2023

Amended claim 1 (auxiliary request II) is inventive over the cited prior art because none of the documents teach adjusting sampling rate based on environmental altering or user-induced events

Hinweis: The court found no motivation in the prior art to solve the technical problem by adjusting the sampling rate based on event triggers, rather than by other means such as more sophisticated devices or reduced measuring frequency.

Patent proprietor entitled to amend challenged claims by inserting features from non-challenged claims

Hinweis: The court established that where a patent is only partially attacked, the proprietor may propose amendments to challenged claims by inserting features from non-attacked claims.

Late-filed prior art documents MB2 and MB4 should be admitted and undermine inventive step

Begründung: The late-filed documents did not relate to the defence raised by the opponent or the amendment application, and therefore did not constitute a legitimate response that would justify late filing; additionally MB2 was published after the priority date.

Request to amend patent is inadmissible with respect to non-challenged claims

Begründung: The court ruled the amendment request inadmissible only as to the non-challenged claims, but admissible as to challenged claims, so this argument was only partially accepted.

New grounds for revocation introduced in reply to defence constitute permissible arguments

Begründung: Grounds that could have been included in the initial statement of revocation are inadmissible if they do not relate to the defence or the amendment application.