throbber
Europaisches
`Patentamt
`
`European
`Patent Office
`
`Office europeen
`des brevets
`
`Beschwsrdekammem
`
`Boards of Appeal
`
`Chambres de recours
`
`Case Number: T 1642/10 - 3.2.02
`
`DECISION
`of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.2.02
`of 23 October 2013
`
`Appellant:
`(Patent Proprietor)
`
`Representative:
`
`Respondent:
`(Opponent 1)
`
`Representative:
`
`Respondent;
`(Opponent 2)
`
`NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF CANADA
`1200 Montreal Road
`Ottawa, ON K1A 0R6 (CA)
`Jansen, Cornells Marinus
`V.O.
`Johan de Wittlaan 7
`2517 JR Dan Haag (NL)
`HAMAMATSU PHOTONICS K.K.
`1126-1, Ichino-cho
`Higashi-ku
`Hamamatsu-shi
`Shizuoka 435-8558 (JP)
`HOFFMANN EITLE
`Patent- und Rechtsanwalte
`Arabellastrasse 4
`D-81925 Mimchen (DE)
`Pulsion Medical Systems AG
`Joseph-Wild-Strasse 20
`D-81829 Miinchen (DE)
`
`Decision under appeal: Decision of the Opposition Division of the
`European Patent Office posted on 10 June 2010
`revoking European patent No. 1143852 pursuant
`to Article 101 (3) (b) EPC.
`
`Composition of the Board:
`Chairman:
`E. Dufrasne
`Members:
`M. Stern
`P. L . P. Weber
`
`CI0570.D
`
` VISIONSENSE - 1009
` VISIONSENSE v.
` NOVADAQ TECHNOLOGIES
` Page 1 of 29
`
`

`

`1
`
`'T 1642/10
`
`Summary of Facts and Submissions
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`The proprietor lodged an appeal against the decision of
`the Opposition Division dispatched on 10 June 2010
`revoking European patent No. 1 143 852.
`
`The Opposition Division revoked the patent on the basis
`that the subject-matter of claim 1 of the granted
`patent lacked novelty over document D32, and that the
`subject-matter of the then pending auxiliary requests
`did not comply with the requirements of Articles 123(2),
`84, 54 and/or 56 EPC. The ground of lack of inventive
`step was based on D32 as closest prior art.
`
`Notice of appeal was filed by the proprietor on 30 July
`2010 and the fee for appeal was paid on 2 August 2010.
`A statement setting out the grounds of appeal was
`received on 11 October 2010.
`
`In a communication under Article 15(1) and 17(2) RPBA
`dated 24 May 2013 annexed to a summons to oral
`proceedings, the Board gave its provisional opinion
`regarding novelty over document D32 and indicated that
`all further objections raised and substantiated by
`respondent-opponent 1 would also be discussed if
`considered necessary.
`
`Respondent-opponent 2 remained silent throughout the
`appeal proceedings.
`
`Hence, in what follows, references to "the respondent"
`are to be understood as referring to "respondent-
`opponent 1".
`
`C10570.D
`
` VISIONSENSE - 1009
` VISIONSENSE v.
` NOVADAQ TECHNOLOGIES
` Page 2 of 29
`
`

`

`V
`
`2
`
`T 1642/10
`
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`With its letter dated 9 September 2013, the appellant
`filed auxiliary requests 1 to 6.
`
`In its response dated 23 September 2013, the respondent
`objected to the admissibility of auxiliary requests 1
`to 6 since they had been filed only about six weeks
`before the oral proceedings and contained features
`taken from the description which related to unsearched
`subj ect-matter.
`
`VII.
`
`Oral proceedings took place on 23 October 2013.
`
`The appellant requested that the decision under appeal
`be set aside and that the patent be maintained* as
`granted or, in the alternative, on the basis of one of
`auxiliary requests 1 and 2 filed with letter dated
`9 September 2013, auxiliary request 3 filed during oral
`proceedings, and auxiliary requests 4 to 6 filed with
`letter dated 9 September 2013.
`
`At the beginning of the oral proceedings the appellant
`requested that only novelty over document D32 be
`discussed and decided upon, particularly since novelty
`over document D1 and inventive step starting from D1
`had not been substantiated by the respondents in reply
`. to the statement of grounds of appeal. Moreover, for
`the discussion of any grounds other than novelty over
`D32, the appellant requested remittal of the case to
`the Opposition Division.
`
`The respondent requested that the appeal be dismissed.
`It also requested that the Board make a final decision
`on all outstanding matters instead of remitting the
`
`C10570 .D
`
` VISIONSENSE - 1009
` VISIONSENSE v.
` NOVADAQ TECHNOLOGIES
` Page 3 of 29
`
`

`

`3
`
`T 1642/10
`
`case to the Opposition Division, and that auxiliary
`requests 1 to 6 should not be admitted.
`
`VIII. The following documents are of importance for the
`present decision:
`
`D32:
`
`Dl:
`D9:
`
`JP-A-9 309 845 (with English translation)
`Brochure nARGUS-20 with C2400-75i”; printed
`May 1997
`M. Sato et al. : "Development of Deep Organ
`Microcirculation Visualization Techniques Using
`an Infrared Biomicroscope System; Research Report
`1990 from the Suzuken Memorial Foundation; Vol. 9,
`pages 63-73 and 228; 20 December, 1991
`D32a: English translation of D32.
`
`IX.
`
`Claim 1 of the different requests reads as follows
`(amendments with respect to claim 1 of the main
`request, i.e. claim 1 of the patent as granted, are
`highlighted by the Board):
`
`Main request:
`
`"A device for visualizing movement of a fluorescent dye
`carried in the bloodstream of a cardiovascular bypass
`graft during a surgical procedure, the device
`comprising
`a means capable of providing radiation suitable to
`excite the fluorescent dye;
`a camera capable of capturing the radiation emitted
`from the fluorescent dye within the blood vessel as an
`angiographic image; and
`wherein the camera captures images at the rate of at
`least 15 images per second;
`
`C10570.D
`
` VISIONSENSE - 1009
` VISIONSENSE v.
` NOVADAQ TECHNOLOGIES
` Page 4 of 29
`
`

`

`4
`
`T 1642/10
`
`wherein the fluorescent dye is ICG and/or has a peak
`absorption and emission in the range 800 to 850 nm; .
`wherein the camera is capable of obtaining multiple
`images of the cardiovascular bypass graft while the
`heart is beating; and wherein the device is suitable to
`convert the images into a viewable image.”
`
`Auxiliary request 1:
`
`”A device for visualizing movement of a fluorescent dye
`carried in the bloodstream of a cardiovascular bypass
`graft during a surgical procedure, the device
`comprising:
`a means capable of providing radiation suitable to
`excite the fluorescent dye;
`a camera capable of capturing the radiation emitted
`from the fluorescent dye within the blood vessel as an
`angiographic image; and
`wherein the camera captures images at the rate of at
`least 15 images per second;
`wherein the fluorescent dye is ICG and/or has a peak
`absorption and emission in the range 800 to 850 nm;
`wherein the camera is capable of obtaining multiple
`images of the cardiovascular bypass graft while the
`heart is beating; and
`wherein the device is suitable to convert the images
`into a viewable image to assess graft patency."
`
`Auxiliary request 2:
`
`”A device for visualizing movement—of a fluorescent dye
`carried in the bloodstream of a cardiovascular bypas-5' ,
`graft during a surgical procedure, the device
`comprising:
`
`C10570 ,D
`
` VISIONSENSE - 1009
` VISIONSENSE v.
` NOVADAQ TECHNOLOGIES
` Page 5 of 29
`
`

`

`5
`
`T 1642/10
`
`a means arranged for capable—of providing radiation
`suitable to excite the fluorescent dye;
`a camera arranged for cap-able—of capturing the
`radiation emitted from the fluorescent, dye within the
`blood vessel as an angiographic image; and
`wherein the camera captures images at the rate of at
`least 15 images per second;
`wherein the fluorescent dye is ICG and/or has a peak
`absorption and emission in the range 800 to 850 nm;
`wherein the camera is arranged for capable.o-f obtaining
`multiple images of a human coronary artery the
`■cardiova scalar bypass graft while the heart is beating;
`and
`wherein the device is arranged for visualizing -movement
`of the fluorescent dye carried in the bloodstream of
`the bypass graft during the surgical procedure,, and is
`suitable to convert the images into a viewable image.”
`
`Auxiliary request 3:
`
`"A device for visualizing movement--of a fluorescent dye
`carried in the bloodstream of -a.ea-rdlovascular bypass-
`graft- during a surgical procedure, the device
`comprising:
`a laser means- capable of providing radiation suitable
`to excite the fluorescent dye and optics positioned to
`diverge the radiant energy beam to cover the area of
`interest wherein the optics provide for even radiation
`of a 7.5 cm x 7.5 cm area, thereby inducing
`fluorescence in the region being imaged;
`a camera capable of capturing the radiation emitted
`from the fluorescent dye within the blood vessel as an
`angiographic image; -and:
`
`C10570.D
`
` VISIONSENSE - 1009
` VISIONSENSE v.
` NOVADAQ TECHNOLOGIES
` Page 6 of 29
`
`

`

`6
`
`T 1642/10
`
`wherein the camera captures images at the rate of at
`least 15 images per second;
`wherein the fluorescent dye is ICG and/or has a peak
`absorption and emission in the range 800 to 850 nm;
`wherein the camera is capable of obtaining multiple
`images of a human coronary artery the- cardiovascu 1 ar-
`bypass graft while the heart is' beating; and
`wherein the- device is capable of visualizing movement
`of the fluorescent dye carried in the bloodstream of
`the bypass graft during the surgical procedure, and is
`suitable to convert the images into a viewable image.”
`
`Auxiliary request 4;
`
`"A device for visualizing movement of a fluorescent dye
`carried in the bloodstream of a cardiovascular bypass
`graft during a surgical procedure, the device
`comprising:
`a means capable of providing radiation suitable to
`excite the fluorescent dye;
`a camera capable of capturing the radiation
`emitted from the fluorescent d'ye within the blood
`vessel as an angiographic image; and
`a computer running image capture and processing
`software,
`wherein the camera captures images at the rate of at
`least 15 images per second;
`wherein the fluorescent dye is ICG and/or has a peak
`absorption and emission in the range 800 to 850 nm;
`wherein the camera is capable of obtaining multiple
`images of the cardiovascular bypass graft while the
`heart is beating; ©*4 wherein the device is suitable to
`convert the images into a viewable image; arid wherein
`the software is arranged for selecting from the
`
`C10570.D
`
` VISIONSENSE - 1009
` VISIONSENSE v.
` NOVADAQ TECHNOLOGIES
` Page 7 of 29
`
`

`

`7
`
`T 1642/10
`
`multiple images the optimal images for analysis, and
`for determining from the selected images the diameter
`of the blood vessel as well as a rate and volume of
`blood flow through the vessel.,T
`
`Auxiliary request 5:
`
`"A device for visualizing movement of a fluorescent dye
`carried in the bloodstream of a cardiovascular bypass
`graft during a surgical procedure, the device
`, •
`comprising:
`a means capable of providing radiation suitable to
`.excite the fluorescent dye;
`a camera capable of capturing the radiation emitted
`from the fluorescent dye within the blood vessel as an
`angiographic image; and
`a computer running image capture and processing
`software,
`wherein the camera captures images at the rate of at
`least 15 images per second;
`wherein the fluorescent dye is ICG and/or has a peak
`absorption and emission in the range 800 to 850 nm;
`wherein the camera’is capable of obtaining multiple
`images of the cardiovascular bypass graft while the
`heart is beating; and wherein the device is suitable to
`convert the images into a viewable image; and wherein
`the software is arranged for selecting from the
`multiple images the images with greatest contrast for
`analysis, and for determining from the selected images
`the diameter of the blood vessel as well as a rate and
`volume of blood flow through the vessel."
`
`C10570.D
`
` VISIONSENSE - 1009
` VISIONSENSE v.
` NOVADAQ TECHNOLOGIES
` Page 8 of 29
`
`

`

`8
`
`T 1642/10
`
`Auxiliary request 6:
`
`"A device for visualizing movement of a fluorescent dye
`carried in the bloodstream of a cardiovascular bypass
`graft during a surgical procedurer the device
`comprising:
`a means capable of providing radiation suitable to
`excite the fluorescent dye;
`a camera capable of capturing the radiation emitted
`from the fluorescent dye within the blood vessel as an
`angiographic image; ae4
`wherein the camera captures images at the rate of at
`least 15 images per second;
`wherein the fluorescent dye is ICG and/or has a peak
`absorption and emission in the range 800 to 850 nm;
`wherein the camera is capable of obtaining multiple
`images of the cardiovascular bypass graft while the
`heart is beating; and wherein the device is suitable to
`convert the images into a viewable image^
`wherein the means capable of providing radiation is a
`laser and the-device further comprises optics
`positioned to diverge the radiant energy beam to cover
`the area of interest, wherein the optics are adjustable,
`permitting variation in a field of illumination, and
`wherein the camera comprises a lens system for a [sic]
`magnifying a field of view, wherein the lens system is
`capable of being switched to the laser to
`correspondingly adjust a field of illumination provided
`by the laser to match the field of view of the camera."
`
`C1057O.D
`
` VISIONSENSE - 1009
` VISIONSENSE v.
` NOVADAQ TECHNOLOGIES
` Page 9 of 29
`
`

`

`9
`
`T 1642/10
`
`X.
`
`The arguments of the appellant relevant for the present
`decision are summarised as follows.
`
`(i) Procedural matters:•
`
`- Since the Opposition Division had only decided
`questions of patentability on the basis of D32 it was
`justified to remit the case to the Opposition Division
`for examination of any other groundsr in particular the
`grounds of novelty over D1 and of inventive step
`starting from D1. The appellant should not be deprived
`of its right to have its case considered by two degrees
`of jurisdiction. Furthermorer the objection of lack of
`novelty over D1 had not been adequately substantiated
`by the respondent since its reply to the statement of
`grounds of appeal merely referred to submissions made
`during the- first-instance proceedings (point 1.3 of the
`respondent’s reply to the statement of grounds of
`appeal).
`
`- Auxiliary requests 1, 2, and 4 to 6 had been filed
`about six weeks before the oral proceedings in response
`to the Board’s communication dealing with the novelty-
`objections regarding'D32, arid should certainly be seen
`as an appropriate attempt to counter the objections of
`lack of inventive step departing from D1 as discussed
`during the oral proceedings. The further limitations
`added to claim 1 of each of these requests did not
`involve technically complex issues preventing the
`respondent or the Board from dealing with them
`effectively. Current auxiliary request 3 had been filed
`at oral proceedings as a slightly amended version of
`the previously filed auxiliary request 3 in response to
`
`C10570.D
`
` VISIONSENSE - 1009
` VISIONSENSE v.
` NOVADAQ TECHNOLOGIES
` Page 10 of 29
`
`

`

`10
`
`T 1642/10
`
`the objection under Rule 80 EPC discussed for the first
`time during the oral proceedings.
`
`(ii) Novelty and inventive step:
`
`- The ICG complex of the examples of D1 had apparently
`been specifically designed for migration in the nervous
`system- It was administered by direct injection into
`the brain for gradual diffusion and migration
`throughout the body, rather than as a tight bolus
`directly into the bloodstream, whereby D1 taught away
`from the use of ICG as a means to measure the rapid
`blood flow in vessels.
`
`- The particular visualisation feature of visualising
`movement of a fluorescent dye carried in the
`bloodstream of a cardiovascular bypass graft during a
`surgical procedure while the heart was beating had not
`been disclosed previously. Moreover, the experiments
`described in D1 were performed in real time using
`exposure times of 1 second (paragraphs [0037], [0040]),
`as low light conditions would prompt the user to use an
`increased integration time. Hence, the camera of D1 was
`set to capture images at a much slower rate than the
`maximal capture rate of about 30 images per second
`disclosed in D9. Such a long exposure time would not
`allow visualisation of movement of a fluorescent dye
`carried in the blood stream of a cardiovascular bypass
`graft while the heart was beating. In contrast, the
`device of the invention provided the camera with the
`capability of capturing angiographic images at an image
`capture rate of at least 15 images per second. In
`particular, a high image capture rate was necessary to
`determine the movement of the dye to assess graft
`
`C10570.D
`
` VISIONSENSE - 1009
` VISIONSENSE v.
` NOVADAQ TECHNOLOGIES
` Page 11 of 29
`
`

`

`11
`
`T 1642/10
`
`patency, as further defined in claim 1 of auxiliary
`request 1. There was no hint in D1 to use the camera of
`D1 in low light conditions with the higher capture rate
`disclosed in D9.
`
`- There was no reason to replace the halogen lamp
`disclosed in D1 by a laser, as defined in claim 1 of
`auxiliary request 3. Moreover, the area of interest was
`defined to be large enough to visualise the whole
`length of a human coronary artery bypass graft.
`
`(iii) Rule 80 EPC:
`
`The expression "arranged for" in claim 1 of auxiliary
`request 2 was intended to define more clearly that the
`device was intended to expressly carry out the
`specified functions. There was however no structural
`difference between a feature recited to be "arranged
`for" performing a certain function and the same feature
`recited to be "capable of" performing that function.
`
`XI. The arguments of the respondent relevant for the
`present decision are summarised as follows.
`
`(i) Procedural matters:
`
`- For the sake of procedural efficiency and in the
`interest of the respondent’s and the public’s legal
`certainty, the Board was requested to make a final
`decision on all outstanding matters, rather than remit
`the case to the Opposition Division after consideration
`of D32. The respondent’s reply to'the statement of
`grounds of appeal contained several passages (sections
`1.2.1, 2.1.1 and 2.1.2) in which the objections of
`
`C10570.D
`
` VISIONSENSE - 1009
` VISIONSENSE v.
` NOVADAQ TECHNOLOGIES
` Page 12 of 29
`
`

`

`12
`
`T 1642/10
`
`novelty and inventive step based on Dl, even in
`combination with D9, were discussed. These objections
`were thus substantiated and formed part of the
`respondent’s case in the present appeal. Moreover, the
`appellant had presented detailed counterarguments to
`the objections based on Dl in its letter in preparation
`of the oral proceedings.
`
`- Auxiliary requests 1, 2 and 4 to 6 had been filed
`about six weeks before the oral proceedings, and
`auxiliary request 3 had been filed during the oral
`proceedings. These late-filed requests could have been
`presented earlier, particularly during the first-
`instance proceedings when D32 was discussed. In
`particular, claims 1 of auxiliary requests 4 to 6 had
`been amended with features extracted from the
`description (page 13, lines 13 to 16.; page 11, lines 5
`to 8) which had not yet been searched, had not been
`examined by the Opposition Division, and involved
`considerable complexity which prevented a thorough
`assessment of their patentability. Therefore, the Board
`was requested to exercise its discretion under
`Article 13(1) RPBA not to admit these late requests.
`
`(ii) Novelty and inventive step:
`
`. •
`
`- Dl disclosed a device for imaging a fluorescent dye
`in a rat, wherein the camera captured the radiation
`emitted from the dye in the range of 800 to 850 nm
`(paragraphs [0014], [0021], [0035];. Figure 2). Dl
`disclosed the imaging processing device to be a
`Hamamatsu ARGUS-20 processor with a C2400-75i camera,
`which was explained in D9 to have an image capture rate
`of about 30 or 25 images per second, for.NTSC and PAL
`
`C10570.D
`
` VISIONSENSE - 1009
` VISIONSENSE v.
` NOVADAQ TECHNOLOGIES
` Page 13 of 29
`
`

`

`13
`
`T 1642/10
`
`respectively. Hence, D1 disclosed, or at least rendered
`obvious, all the structural features of the device of
`claim 1 ol the main request.
`
`- The device resulting from the combination of D1 with
`D9 was moreover suitable for the claimed application to
`visualise movement of a fluorescent dye carried in the
`bloodstream of a cardiovascular bypass graft during a
`surgical procedure while the heart was beating. D1
`disclosed the imaging-of the fluorescence emitted from
`within the body of a rat through its body tissues. The
`imaging of a fluorescent dye carried by the blood
`stream of a cardiovascular bypass graft required a
`field of view which was comparable to, if not smaller
`than, the field of view necessary for visualising the
`whole body of a rat. Also the fluorescence light
`intensities emitted from an exposed blood vessel were
`comparable to, if not larger than, those emitted by a
`fluorescent dye from inside the body of a rat. The
`appropriate image capture rate was set according to the
`particular application, and was not necessarily
`restricted to be equal to the maximal capture rate of
`about 30 images per second disclosed in D9.
`Consequently, there were no considerations of
`dimensions or light intensities which made the imaging
`of a cardiovascular bypass graft unfeasible, let alone
`impossible. Images revealing the dye would make it
`possible to determine the movement of the injected
`fluorescent dye through the cardiovascular graft while
`the heart was beating, and thus to assess graft patency.
`
`- From D32 it was known that a halogen lamp and a laser
`were alternative light sources for fluorescence imaging
`devices. Moreover, the skilled person would readily
`
`C10570 .D
`
` VISIONSENSE - 1009
` VISIONSENSE v.
` NOVADAQ TECHNOLOGIES
` Page 14 of 29
`
`

`

`14
`
`T 1642/10
`
`adjust the size of the area of interest to the size of
`the object to be imaged, whereby optics providing an
`area of interest size of 7.5 cm x 7.5 cm as recited in
`claim 1 of auxiliary request 3 would be readily
`considered.
`
`(iii) Rule 80 EPC:
`
`No structural difference was apparent between a feature
`recited to be ’’capable of” (or ’’suitable for”)
`performing a certain function and the same feature
`"arranged for” performing that function. Hence, claim 1
`of auxiliary request 2 was not allowable under Rule 80
`EPC.
`
`Reasons for the Decision
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`2.1
`
`The appeal is admissible.
`
`Procedural matters
`
`Whilst the appellant requested (during the oral
`proceedings) that the case be remitted to the
`Opposition Division particularly for the examination of
`novelty over D1 and inventive step starting from Dl,
`the respondent opposed this request in order not to
`further delay a final decision on the fate of the
`contested patent.
`
`2.2
`
`Article 111(1) EPC leaves it to the discretion of the
`Board whether to exercise any power within the
`competence of the department of first instance or to
`remit the case to that department. Hence, a party has
`
`C10570.D
`
` VISIONSENSE - 1009
` VISIONSENSE v.
` NOVADAQ TECHNOLOGIES
` Page 15 of 29
`
`

`

`- 15
`
`T 1642/10
`
`no absolute right to have each individual issue
`considered by two instances (Case Law of the Boards of
`Appeal of the EPO, 7th edition 2013, IV.E.7.6.1). In
`the present case, the Board observes that the patent
`was granted in 2007, i.e. six years ago, and that
`remittal would prolong the already lengthy opposition
`proceedings. Moreover, the considerations of novelty
`and inventive step regarding Dl, as already addressed
`by bpth parties in the written appeal proceedings,
`appeared to be very similar to those regarding D32 on
`which the impugned decision was based.
`
`Contrary to the appellant's view, the Board considers
`that the objections of lack of novelty regarding Dl and
`of inventive step starting from Dl are part of the
`respondent's case since they were presented in the
`respondent's reply to the statement of grounds of
`appeal (Article 12(2) RPBA). Whilst the appellant
`considered that the lack of novelty over Dl had only
`been addressed in the respondent's reply (point 1.3) by
`referring to submissions made during the first-instance
`proceedings, the Board finds that the reply does in
`fact contain explicit discussions about several
`technical details disclosed in Dl (sections 1.2.1,
`2.1.1 and 2.1.2). It was therefore clear to the
`appellant and the Board which were the main factual
`reasons relied upon by the respondent for its
`objections of lack of novelty and inventive step in
`view of Dl. Moreover, the appellant had in fact already
`presented detailed arguments concerning the objections
`based on Dl in its letter dated 9 September 2013 in
`preparation of the oral proceedings (even the statement
`of grounds of appeal included, on pages 17 to 20, a
`detailed discussion of the disclosure of Dl). '
`
`2.3
`
`C10570 .D
`
` VISIONSENSE - 1009
` VISIONSENSE v.
` NOVADAQ TECHNOLOGIES
` Page 16 of 29
`
`

`

`\
`
`\
`
`16
`
`T 1642/10
`
`2.4
`
`Accordingly, in view of the above circumstances and
`taking into'consideration the imperative of procedural
`'efficiency and the interest of the respondent and the
`public in a speedy and streamlined procedure, the Board
`considers it appropriate to decide the case itself
`rather than remit it to the department of first
`instance pursuant to Article 111(1) EPC.
`
`2.5
`
`Admissibility of auxiliary requests 1 to- 6
`
`2.5.1
`
`2.5.2
`
`The respondent requested the Board to exercise its
`discretion under Article 13 (1) RPBA not to admit
`auxiliary requests 1, 2 and 4 to 6 which were filed
`about six weeks before the oral proceedings, as well as
`auxiliary request 3 filed during the oral proceedings.
`It was argued that these requests could have been
`presented earlier, particularly during the first-
`instance proceedings when D32 was discussed.
`
`The Board considers, however, that auxiliary requests 1
`to 3 as filed on 9 September 2013, about six weeks.
`before the oral proceedings, constitute an appropriate
`attempt to counter the objections of lack of inventive
`step departing from D1 discussed in the written
`proceedings. The further limitations added to claim 1
`of each of these requests do not involve any technical
`complexity preventing the respondent or the Board from
`dealing with them effectively. Current auxiliary
`request 3 was filed at oral proceedings as a slightly
`amended version of the previously filed auxiliary
`request 3 in order to render it compliant with Rule 80
`EPC, a requirement discussed for the first time during
`the oral proceedings.
`
`C10570.D
`
` VISIONSENSE - 1009
` VISIONSENSE v.
` NOVADAQ TECHNOLOGIES
` Page 17 of 29
`
`

`

`17
`
`T 1642/10
`
`Hence, the Board considers that auxiliary requests 1 to
`3 are admissible.
`
`2.5.3 Auxiliary requests 4 to 6 relate to subject-matter
`which does not have a counterpart in the claims of the
`granted patent. In particular, claim 1 of auxiliary
`requests 4 and 5 contains the feature of computer
`processing software for determining from selected
`images the diameter of the blood vessel as well as the
`rate and volume of blood flow through the vessel. This
`subject-matter, which had not been part of the first-
`instance proceedings, has been extracted from the
`description (page 13, lines 13 to 16). This also holds
`for claim 1 of auxiliary request 6 which contains the
`feature of adjusting the field of illumination provided
`by the laser to match the field of view of the camera,
`which is disclosed in the description on page 11,
`lines 5 to 8.
`
`Therefore, the Board shares the respondent's view that
`the subject-matter claimed in these requests has not
`yet been searched and involves considerable complexity,
`preventing the respondent from adequately preparing a
`thorough assessment of its patentability.
`
`As a consequence, the Board does not admit auxiliary
`requests 4 to 6 pursuant to Article 13(1) RPBA.
`
`Main request and auxiliary requests 1 and 3 - novelty
`and inventive step
`
`Document Dl discloses a device for visualising or
`imaging a fluorescent dye in a living body
`
`3.
`
`3.1
`
`C10570.D
`
` VISIONSENSE - 1009
` VISIONSENSE v.
` NOVADAQ TECHNOLOGIES
` Page 18 of 29
`
`

`

`18
`
`T 1642/10
`
`(paragraphs [0014], [0021], [0035]; Figure 2), the
`device comprising means capable of providing radiation
`suitable to excite the fluorescent dye and a camera
`capable of capturing the radiation emitted from the
`fluorescent dye (paragraph [0035]). The fluorescent dye
`has a peak emission in a wavelength range which, as
`seen in Figure 1, lies in the claimed range of 800 to
`850 nm (cf. also paragraph [0016]). D1 specifically
`discloses the imaging of an experimental animal, in
`particular the entire body of a Wister rat, after the
`fluorescent dye has been injected into the brain from
`where it migrates to the spinal cord (paragraphs [0036]
`to [0038]; Figures 2 to 6). The device of D1 is
`therefore suitable to convert the images into a
`viewable image, as defined in claim 1.
`
`3.2
`
`D1 does not however explicitly disclose the following
`features of the device specified in claim 1 of the main
`request:
`
`(a) the camera captures images at a rate of at least
`15 images per second;
`(b) the device is suitable for visualising movement of
`a fluorescent dye carried in the blood stream of a
`cardiovascular bypass graft while the heart is beating;
`and
`(c) the camera is capable of capturing the radiation
`emitted from the fluorescent dye within the blood
`vessel as an angiographic image.
`
`3.3
`
`The only disclosure given in Dl regarding camera
`specifications is that the device comprises a C2400-75i
`CCD camera with an image processing device ARGUS-20,
`both manufactured by Hamamatsu Photonics Co. Ltd.
`
`C10570 ,D
`
` VISIONSENSE - 1009
` VISIONSENSE v.
` NOVADAQ TECHNOLOGIES
` Page 19 of 29
`
`

`

`- 19
`
`T 1642/10
`
`The respondent argued that since document D9 was a
`specification brochure of a Hamamatsu .imaging
`processing device with the same product name "ARGUS-20
`with a C2400~75i CCD camera", the disclosure of D9
`should be considered as being incorporated into D1 by
`reference.
`
`3l4 However, the Board does not accept this argument at
`least for the reason that the brochure D9 carries a
`printing date of May 1997 which is later than the
`filing date of Dl, 21 May 1996. Therefore, the
`specifications of the C2400-751 camera and ARGUS-20
`image processing device given in D9 may well be
`different from those at the filing date of Dl. Whilst
`the respondent stated at oral proceedings that this
`possibility had not in fact occurred, the Board did not
`see this statement as evidence for the respondent's
`argument that Dl specifically referred to precisely the
`same device as was later disclosed in D9.
`
`Hence, the absence of the aforementioned structural
`feature (a) from Dl renders the device of claim 1 novel
`over this document.
`
`However, when solving the objective technical problem
`of reducing the device of Dl to practice, the skilled
`person would readily search for specifications of the
`C2400-75i camera and ARGUS-20 image processing device
`mentioned in Dl. Since D9' offers these specif ications,
`it would be straightforward for the skilled person to
`devise the camera of Dl according to the D9
`specifications. In particular, D9 specifies in.the
`C2400-75i parameter table that the camera uses a sync
`
`3.5
`
`3.6
`
`C10570.D
`
` VISIONSENSE - 1009
` VISIONSENSE v.
` NOVADAQ TECHNOLOGIES
` Page 20 of 29
`
`

`

`20
`
`T 1642/10
`
`system at 59.94 Hz (NTSC) or 50 Hz (PAL) which, with
`the specified interlace ratio of 2:1, is equivalent to
`an image capture rate of 29.97 or 25 images per second
`(for NTSC and PAL respectively). Both of these image
`capture rates fall within the range of "at least
`15 images per second" defined in claim 1.
`
`3.7
`
`The Board furthermore considers that the device
`resulting from the combination of documents D1 and D9
`has the imaging capabilities expressed by
`aforementioned functional features (b) and (c). The
`reasons are the following.
`
`3.7.1 The appellant is correct in observing that the
`particular application of visualising movement of a
`fluorescent dye carried in the bloodstream of a
`cardiovascular bypass graft during a surgical procedure
`while the heart is beating has not been disclosed in D1.
`'However, claim 1 merely defines a device which is
`suitable for such an application. Thus, the only
`question to be answered is whether the device resulting
`from the combination, of D1 with D9 is deemed to be
`suitable for this application.
`
`3.7.2 Contrary to the view held by the appellant, the nature
`of the fluorescent dye used is relevant for specifying
`the device according to claim 1 only to the extent that
`it requires the camera to be capable of effectively
`capturing images at the fluorescence wavelength ,
`emitting range of 800 to 850 run defined in claim 1. As
`indicated under point 3.1 above, the camera of D1 has
`the capability of imaging fluorescence emissions in
`that range.
`
`C10570 .d
`
` VISIONSENSE - 1009
` VISIONSENSE v.
` NOVADAQ TECHNOLOGIES
` Page 21 of 29
`
`

`

`21
`
`T 1642/10
`
`Moreover, D1 discloses the imaging of the fluorescence
`emitted from within the body of a rat through its body
`tissues. The imaging of a fluorescent dye carried in
`the blood stream of a cardiovasc

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket