Columbia Ex. 2079
`Illumina, Inc. v. The Trustees
`of Columbia University in the
`City of New York
`IPR2020-00988, -01065,
`-01177, -01125, -01323
`
`

`

`Europaisches
`Pa“"“"'"‘
`
`
`
`Efiiiflfi'lfice
`Office européen
`des brevets
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ernest Gutmann - Yves Plasseraud S.A.S.
`
`88 Boulevard des Belges
`69452 Lyon cedex 06
`FRANCE
`
`European Patent Office
`80298 MUNICH
`
`GERMANY
`
`Questions about this communication ?
`Contact Customer Services at www.epo.org/contact
`
`Formalities officer
`Sonnenschmidt, Sandra
`
`Date
`
`06.08.2020
`
`Reference
`LBOO423-CA/PPT
`
`Applicant/Proprietor
`
`Application No./Patent No.
`151957651 - 1118 / 3034627
`
`
`
`The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York
`
`EPA/EPO/OEB Formblatt/Form/Formulaire :
`
`2310
`
`Empfangsbescheinigung fiber den Zugang des vorstehend bezeichneten Schriftstiicks
`Acknowledgement of receipt of the document specified above
`Récépissé du document spécifié ci-dessus
`
`Unter Bezugnahme auf die Mitteilung im ABI EPA 7/2010, 377 wird gebeten, die Empfangsbescheinigung
`mit Empfangsdatum und Unterschrift zu versehen und umgehend an das EPA zuriickzusenden:
`
`With reference to the Notice in OJ EPO 7/2010, 377, you are requested to date and sign the
`acknowledgement of receipt and return it to the EPO immediately:
`
`Conformément au communiqué paru au JO OEB 7/2010, 377, vous étes prié d'indiquer sur le récépissé la
`date de réception du document, de signer le récépissé et de le renvoyer sans délai a l' OEB:
`
`0 fiber die Online-Dienste des EPA (als Anlage zu EPA Form 1038) /through EPO Online Services
`(as annex to EPO Form 1038) / par les services en ligne de I'OEB (en tant que piece jointe au
`formulaire OEB 1038),
`0 per Fax / by fax / par téléfax (+49 (0) 89 2399-4465 or +31 (0) 70 340-3016)
`0 oder per Post / or by post / ou par courrier.
`
`Empfangen am / Received on / Regu le :
`
`I
`
`I
`
`I
`
`I Pl‘i'ck'se'nde-Adiresse'l F'iet'urn address 7 Adresse 'de'retour
`(Umschlag / envelope / enveloppe ISO C4 / DL / C6/CS / C6)
`
`Unterschrift / Signature:
`
`GNV'IHOSLDHCI
`
`NEIHONflW 86308
`twetuated seqosggdoma
`
`Empfangsberechtigter/authorised recipient/
`le destinataire ou la personne dument mandatée
`
`JnOJSJ ep esserV / sserpe anieH / esserv-epuesxona
`
`page1 of1
`
`8851511
`
`
`
`
`
`EPA/EPO/OEBForm293608.10
`
`

`

`Europaisches
`Pa“"“"'"‘
`Euro can
`patel’t Office
`
`Office européen des brevets
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ernest Gutmann - Yves Plasseraud S.A.S.
`
`88 Boulevard des Belges
`69452 Lyon cedex 06
`FRANCE
`
`European Patent Office
`80298 MUNICH
`
`GERMANY
`
`Questions about this communication ?
`Contact Customer Services at www.epo.org/contact
`
`Date
`
`06.08.2020
`
`Reference
`LBOO423-CA/PPT
`
`Application No./Patent No.
`
`15195765.1 - 1118 / 3034627 Applicant/Proprietor
`
`The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York
`
`Summons to attend oral proceedings pursuant to Rule 115(1) EPC
`
`You are hereby summoned to attend oral proceedings arranged in connection with the above-mentioned
`European patent.
`
`The matters to be discussed are set out in the communication accompanying this summons (EPO Form
`2906).
`
`The oral proceedings, which will be public, will take place before the opposition division
`
`on 25.05.21 at 09.00 hrs in Room 1656 at the EPO,
`
`Grasserstr. 2, PschorrHéfe, D-80335 Miinchen
`
`No changes to the date of the oral proceedings can be made, except on serious grounds (see OJ EPO
`1/2009, 68). If you do not appear as summoned, the oral proceedings may continue without you (R. 115(2)
`EPC).
`
`Your attention is drawn to Rule 4 EPC, regarding the language of the oral proceedings, and to the Special
`edition No. 3 OJ EPO 2007, 128, concerning the filing of authorisations for company employees and
`lawyers acting as representatives before the EPO.
`
`The final date for making written submissions and/or amendments (R. 116 EPC) is 25.03.21.
`
`You are requested to report in good time beforehand to the porter in the EPO foyer. Room 1657 is
`available as waiting room.
`
`Parking is available in the underground car park, accessible only via the entrance "Grasserstrasse 2/6".
`On presentation of the summons to oral proceedings at the porters' lodge in the main foyer
`"Bayerstrasse", the parking ticket will be revoked.
`
`1st Examiner:
`Knudsen, Henrik
`
`2nd Examiner:
`Behrens, Ralf
`
`Chairman:
`Tilkorn, Anne-Christ
`
`For the Opposition Division
`Ewes Paternity,”
`03»
`56‘
`ms
`6’5
`-
`“3o
`
`o
`
`>
`as
`5
`11:9
`00%
`' 004/78 saute
`
`g
`
`‘U
`51
`9
`N
`@589
`
`Annexes:
`Confirmation of receipt (Form 2936)
`Rule 4 EPC (EPC Form 2043)
`Communication (EPO Form 2906)
`
`Registered letter
`EPO Form 2310 07.19 [ORAL03=1656]
`
`(03/08I20)
`
`ORAL4
`
`to EPO postal sen/ice: 03.08.20
`page 1 of1
`
`

`

`Important information concerning oral proceedings
`
`This annex provisionally replaces former EPO Form 2043 (Rule 4 EPC)
`
`Tres important — procedure orale
`
`Cette annexe remplace provisoirement |'ancien formulaire 2043 de I'OEB (regle 4
`
`CBE)
`
`Wichtige Hinweise zur mijndlichen Verhandlung
`Diese Anlage ersetzt vorl'jbergehend EPA Form 2043 (Regel 4 EPU)
`
`(1) In opposition, oral proceedings may be held by videoconference if all parties
`
`to be summoned and the opposition division give their consent. We would,
`
`therefore, ask you whether you would agree to the oral proceedings being
`held as a videoconference.
`
`(2) In case of oral proceedings held at the premises of the EPO and as a result of
`
`the regulations on social distancing, only a limited number of places are available
`
`in the rooms for conducting oral proceedings. It is assumed you will attend with a
`
`maximum of two persons and the room reservation will be made accordingly.
`
`Should you wish to attend with more participants, please inform the EPO.
`
`(3) In order to properly organise the upcoming oral proceedings, we would ask that you
`
`supply us with information regarding your need for simultaneous interpretation (Rule
`
`4 EPC). Please let us know which language(s) you intend to use during the
`
`proceedings (speaking) and for which language you would require simultaneous
`
`interpretation (listening).
`
`(1) Lors d’une opposition, Ia procedure orale pourra étre tenue par visioconférence, si
`
`toutes les parties y étant conviées et la division d’opposition sont d’accord. Veuillez-
`
`donc nous indiquer si vous acceptez que la procedure orale soit tenue par visio-
`conference.
`
`(2) Du fait de la tenue de la procedure orale dans les locaux de I’OEB et en raison
`
`des mesures barrieres de distanciation physique, un nombre limité de places sera
`
`disponible dans les salles de procedure orale. La reservation de la salle de
`
`procedure sera faite en prévoyant Ia présence de deux participants par partie. Dans
`
`Ie cas ou cette prévision s’avérerait insuffisante, et que vous devriez assister a la
`
`procedure avec plus d’une personne vous accompagnant, veuillez-en informer
`I’OEB.
`
`

`

`(3) Pour nous permettre de réserver |a sa||e adaptée a la procedure prévue, nous vous
`
`demandons de bien vouloir nous préciser |es informations concernant vos besoins
`
`en matiere de traduction simultanée (regle 4 CBE). Veuillez nous indiquer que||e(s)
`
`|angue(s) vous avez I’intention d’utiliser pendant |a procedure (parlée(s)) et pour
`
`quelle langue vous requérez une traduction simultanée (écoute).
`
`(1) Im Einspruchsverfahren konnen mUndliche Verhandlungen a|s Videokonferenz
`
`durchgerhrt werden, wenn a||e zu ladenden Parteien und die Einspruchsabteilung
`
`damit einverstanden sind. Wir mochten deshalb bei Ihnen anfragen, ob Sie einer
`
`Durcthhrung besagter mUndIiCher Verhandlung a|s Videokonferenz zustimmen.
`
`(2) Bei im Europaischen Patentamt durchgerhrten mUndlichen Verhandlungen und
`
`infolge der Regeln zur raumlichen Distanzierung steht in den Sitzungssalen nur
`
`eine eingeschrankte Zahl von Sitzplatzen zur Verngung. Aufgrund unserer
`
`Erfahrung gehen wir davon aus, dass Sie mit maximal zwei Personen an der
`
`Verhandlung teilnehmen werden. Entsprechend wird die Raumreservierung
`
`vorgenommen, sollten Sie uns nicht mitteilen, dass Sie beabsichtigen, mit weiteren
`
`Personen an der mUndlichen Verhandlung teilzunehmen.
`
`(3) Um die Raume fUr die anstehenden mUndlichen Verhandlungen sachgerecht
`
`einzuplanen, mochten wir Sie um Information Uber Ihren Bedarf an Simultan-
`Ubersetzung bitten (Regel 4 EPU). Bitte tei|en Sie uns mit, welche Sprache(n) Sie in
`
`der mUndlichen Verhandlung ven/venden (Sprechen) und aus welcher Sprache Sie
`
`eine SimultanUbersetzung benotigen (Horen).
`
`

`

`Datu m
`Date
`Date
`
`06.08.2020
`
`Blatt
`
`Sheet
`Feuille
`
`1
`
`Anmelde-Nr:
`
`ApplicationNo:
`Demande n°:
`
`15 195 765.1
`
`I. Introduction
`
`1
`
`European patent 3 034 627 having the title "MASSIVE PARALLEL METHOD
`
`FOR DECODING DNA AND RNA" is based upon European patent application
`
`No. 15 195 765.1. This application was filed as a divisional application of
`
`European application no.07 004 522.4 which is itself a divisional application of
`
`01 977 533.7 filed on 05-10-2001. It claims priority of US 684670 filed on
`06-10-2000 and U8300894 filed on 26-06-2001.
`
`The mention of the grant of the patent has been published in the European
`Patent Bulletin of 30-01-2019.
`
`Proprietor of the patent (PP) is
`
`The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York
`
`West 116th Street and Broadway
`
`New York, NY 10027
`
`US.
`
`A notice of opposition has been filed by
`
`lllumina, Inc.
`
`5200 lllumina Way
`
`San Diego, CA 92122
`US
`
`on 29-10-2019.
`
`The opponent (OP) requests revocation of the patent in its entirety based on
`
`Articles 100(a), in particular Article 56, Article 100(b) and Article 100(0) EPC.
`
`The documents D1-D25 (see consolidated list of documents filed by the PP on
`
`1604-2020) has been filed by the parties.
`
`In a letter received on 1604-2020, the PP requested the rejection of the
`
`opposition (Article 101 (2) EPC).
`
`II. The opposition division's (OD) preliminary and non-binding opinion which is
`
`not conclusive and in which the OD makes the following comments in order to
`
`assist the parties in their preparations for the oral proceedings.
`
`EPO Form 2906 01.91TRI
`
`

`

`Datum
`
`Date
`Date
`
`06.08.2020
`
`Blatt
`
`Sheet
`Feuille
`
`2
`
`Anmelde-Nr:
`
`ApplicationNo:
`Demande n°:
`
`15 195 765.].
`
`".1 Article 100(c) EPC
`
`5
`
`The OP has divided claim 1
`
`into 16 different features and objects to the features
`
`1, 2b, 3-6 and 9a - 9c of claim 1 and the corresponding features in claims 3 and
`
`5 as not having a basis in the originally filed applications (i.e. application
`
`underlying the opposed patent and parent applications).
`
`6
`
`The OD preliminarily and non-bindineg finds that each of the divisional
`
`applications contains the disclosure of the originally filed parent application
`
`which is published as WOO2/29003 (OPA). In the following references to the
`
`originally filed applications therefore refers to the OPA.
`
`ll.1.1 Claim 1
`
`ll.1.1.1 Feature 1
`
`7
`
`The OD finds that it is directly and unambiguously derivable from the OPA that
`
`the immobilisation of the deoxyribonucleic acids is by covalent attachment. The
`
`OPA in the Summary of Invention part (page 9, lines 9-10) mentions that the
`nucleic acids are attached to a solid surface
`
`Feature 1 of granted claim 1 specifies that “the plurality of different
`
`deoxyribonucleic acids is covalently immobilized on a solid surface." and the OP
`
`argues that the OPA does not contain a basis for the wording that the
`
`immobilisation is covalent. The OD finds that the only example in the OPA
`
`shows a covalent attachment of by a reaction of azido and phosphine and that
`
`the skilled person would based on his common general knowledge directly and
`
`unambiguously realise that binding of nucleic acids to solid surface had to be
`
`covalent (see also page 8, line 10 of the OPA) in a SBS reaction as claimed.
`
`Thus, the OD is of the opinion that the skilled person would read any reference
`
`to attachment in the OPA as being a reference to covalent attachment.
`
`ll.1.1.2 Feature 2b
`
`8
`
`The OD is of the opinion that feature 2b has a basis in the combined reading of
`
`claims 1 and 10 of the OPA. In particular, the OD finds that step (ii) of claim 1 of
`
`the OPA does not mean that the primer is bound to the solid surface, but rather
`
`means that the primer is bound to the nucleic acid which is bound to the solid
`
`surface, and that claim 10 defines that the primer is hybridised to the nucleic
`acid.
`EPO Form 2906 01.91TRI
`
`

`

`Datu m
`Date
`Date
`
`06.08.2020
`
`Blatt
`
`Sheet
`Feuille
`
`3
`
`Anmelde-Nr:
`
`ApplicationNo:
`Demande n°:
`
`15 195 765.1
`
`ll.1.1.3 Features 3-6
`
`9
`
`The OD is of the opinion that page 5, lines 5-19 of the OPA outlines the method
`
`of the invention and do not disclose washing steps as being essential.
`
`Moreover, the passage also does not disclose the removal of the label and the
`
`removal of the cap as taking place in two separate steps. Thus, the method
`
`outlined in steps (a) - (d) of claim 1
`
`is disclosed in the OPA also in the absence
`
`of washing steps and separate removal steps.
`
`ll.1.1.4 Feature 9a
`
`10
`
`The OP argues that the OPA does not contain a basis for the wording “as small
`
`as a CH20H=CH2 group or a CH2OCH3 group". The OD is of the opinion that
`
`the wording on page 20, lines 21-24 which represent the definition of the
`
`capping groups states that a small chemical moiety such as a CH20H=CH2
`
`group or a CH2OCH3 group is used to cap the -OH group shows that the
`
`disclosure is not limited to these specific groups. As further groups to be used in
`
`the invention, the skilled reader would based on the disclosure on page 20 of
`
`the OPA unambiguously consider groups which have the same size as
`
`CHZOCHB or CH20H=CH2 as being relevant for use in the invention.
`
`10.1
`
`With respect to the other passages which discuss the capping moieties, e.g. on
`
`pages 6-7 and on pages 25-26, the OD finds that the former is limited to the
`
`preferred groups CH20H=CH2 group or a CHZOCHB group whilst the latter
`
`discusses the properties that the capping group must possess. These properties
`
`are inherent to a capping group used in the claimed method since the method
`
`cannot be carried out if the group does not have the properties outlined in the
`
`sentence bridging pages 25-26 of the OPA.
`
`10.2
`
`Thus, the skilled reader would from the OPA's description understand that the
`
`preferred capping groups are CH20H=CH2 and CH2OCH3, but would from the
`
`description page 20 understand that also other small groups are contemplated
`
`for use and that these groups are small as CH20H=CH2 and CH2OCH3. Thus,
`
`feature 9a is thus directly and unambiguously derivable from the disclosure of
`the OPA.
`
`EPO Form 2906 01.91TRI
`
`

`

`Datum
`
`Date
`Date
`
`06.08.2020
`
`Blatt
`
`Sheet
`Feuille
`
`4
`
`Anmelde-Nr:
`
`ApplicationNo:
`Demande n°:
`
`15 195 765.].
`
`ll.1.1.5 Features 9b and 9c
`
`11
`
`The OD is of the opinion that the disclaimers defined in said features are
`
`disclosed in page 6, lines 2-14 and therefore have a basis in the OPA.
`
`".12 Claims 3 and 5
`
`12
`
`For the same reasons as outlined above for claim 1, the OD is of the opinion
`that claims 3 and 5 have a basis in the OPA.
`
`ll.1.3 Dependent claims
`
`13
`
`The OP has not raised specific objections against the dependent claims and the
`
`OD is of the opinion that the dependent claims have a basis in the OPA.
`
`".2 Article 100(b) EPC
`
`14
`
`The OP has objected to the sufficiency of the disclosure based on a number of
`issues.
`
`14.1
`
`Firstly, the OP argues that the skilled person would not be able to determine
`
`whether a chemical group is as small as a -CH2CH=CH2 group or a -CH2OCH3
`
`group, in particular in view of the fact that the parameter with which the size is
`
`determined is not defined in the description and because there is no guidance
`
`on how to measure the size of the chemical group. The OP argues that it would
`
`not be possible to produce a group because the skilled person would not know
`
`according to which parameter the group had to be as small as the said groups.
`
`14.2
`
`The OD preliminarily finds that the size identified by the PP in D19 (i.e. 3.7 A)
`
`does not correspond to the size which the skilled person would understand from
`
`the claim. The skilled reader would not have had any reason to consider "as
`
`small as
`
`" as encompassing chemical groups larger than the largest of the
`
`chemical groups mentioned. According to D19, the diameters of the groups are
`3.0 and 2.1 A, respectively.
`
`EPO Form 2906 01.91TRI
`
`

`

`Datu m
`Date
`Date
`
`06.08.2020
`
`Blatt
`
`Sheet
`Feuille
`
`5
`
`Anmelde-Nr:
`
`ApplicationNo:
`Demande n°:
`
`15 195 765.1
`
`14.2.1
`
`However, in line with recent case law, e.g. T1845/14, the OD is of the opinion
`
`that a mere ambiguity in a claim does not suffice to show that a claim is
`
`insufficiently disclosed in the sense of Article 100(b) EPC. Thus, the OD
`
`preliminarily finds that despite the difference in size which the PP, based on
`D19, considers as being encompassed by as small as (i.e. smaller than 3.7 A)
`
`and the actual size of the -CH20H=CH2 group or a -CHZOCH3 groups, the
`
`skilled person will understand from the disclosure which size the group may
`
`have and will therefore be able to carry out the claimed invention.
`
`14.2.2
`
`Moreover, the PP has also pointed to azidomethyl as being a further group
`which falls within the size limitation "as small as
`" and which also fulfils the
`
`chemical requirements defined in the claim. Thereby apparently showing that
`
`the skilled person could have identified further groups fulfilling the requirements
`in the claim.
`
`14.2.3
`
`In order for the above to apply, it seems to be a prerequisite that it is possible
`
`for the skilled person to determine the size of the -CH20H=CH2 group or a -
`
`CH2OCH3 groups and compare them with other groups without undue burden.
`
`On the contrary if it is not possible to determine the size without carrying out
`
`experiments with polymerase, the definition "as small as
`
`appears to invite
`
`the skilled person to carry out a research programme to determine whether or
`
`not a group functions in the invention. In this case, the claim would likely be
`
`considered insufficiently disclosed, in particular because Figure 1 of the patent
`
`relates to a specific rat polymerase and the test would have to be carried out
`
`with any polymerase which the skilled person wished to use. Preliminarily and in
`
`the absence of evidence to the contrary, the OD finds that the skilled person
`
`could have used the ChemSD Pro software (see Exhibit C of D19) in order to
`
`identify chemical groups with a size as small as the -CH20H=CH2 group or a -
`
`CH2OCH3 groups
`
`14.3
`
`With respect to OH groups on dideoxy analogues or the metabolism of azido
`
`groups, the OD is preliminary of the opinion that they would not influence the
`
`skilled person's possibility of identifying capping groups for use in the claim.
`
`EPO Form 2906 01.91TRI
`
`

`

`Datu m
`Date
`Date
`
`14.4
`
`06.08.2020
`
`Blatt
`
`Sheet
`Feuille
`
`6
`
`Anmelde-Nr:
`
`ApplicationNo:
`Demande n°:
`
`15 195 765.1
`
`With respect to the cleavability of the capping group, the OD is preliminary of
`
`the opinion that the OP has not provided any proof that capping groups exist
`
`which fulfill the requirements outlined in the claim and cannot be used in the
`
`claimed method. In particular, the claimed method requires that the capping
`
`group is cleaved and the claim could therefore only be insufficiently disclosed if
`
`it was proven that it would represent an undue burden for the skilled person to
`
`determine whether a group falling within the definitions in the claim was
`cleavable.
`
`15
`
`Since independent claims 3 and 5, and the dependent claims were objected to
`
`on the same grounds as claim 1, the OD is preliminarily of the opinion that all
`
`granted claims of the opposed patent are sufficiently disclosed.
`
`".3 Article 100(a) EPC
`
`16
`
`17
`
`The OP has not objected to the patent under novelty.
`
`With respect to inventive step, the OD preliminarily finds that D15 published
`
`shortly before the priority date of the opposed patent represents the closest
`
`prior art. D15 (see sentence bridging pages 2—3) realises the general problem
`
`which the opposed patent's claimed method tries to solve, namely that the SBS
`
`technique is plagued by inefficiencies of incorporation and deprotection.
`
`Because incorporation and 3’-OH regeneration are not completely efficient, the
`
`sequencing method becomes asynchronous. D15 (see page 31) also points to a
`
`possible explanation for the inefficiencies, namely that steric hindrance of large
`
`fluorochrome groups attached to the 3'-OH of the nucleotide may prevent the
`
`nucleotide from entering the polymerase. D15 (page 4, 2nd paragraph)
`
`continues that its blocking group and its labelling group may be removed by
`
`different mechanisms .D15 mentions that the mechanism may be a chemical
`
`activation and further mentions that the group may be a 2—nitrobenzyl group
`
`(see claim 6).
`
`17.1
`
`The difference between granted claim 1 and D15 is that the nitrobenzyl group is
`
`not as small as the -CH20H=CH2 and -CHZOCH3 groups.
`
`EPO Form 2906 01.91TRI
`
`

`

`Datu m
`Date
`Date
`
`17.2
`
`06.08.2020
`
`Blatt
`
`Sheet
`Feuille
`
`7
`
`Anmelde-Nr:
`
`ApplicationNo:
`Demande n°:
`
`15 195 765.1
`
`The objective problem solved by the claimed method is the provision of a
`
`functional sequencing by synthesis method in which the nucleotides can be
`
`efficiently incorporated and deprotected. Post-published D20 filed by the PP
`
`appears to provide evidence that nucleotides with nitrobenzyl blocking group
`
`are not efficiently incorporated by polymerase.
`
`17.3
`
`In view of the fact that the closest prior art, D15, stated that nitrobenzyl, which is
`
`a substantially larger group than the -CH2CH=CH2 and -CH2OCH3 groups,
`
`would work efficiently in a SBS method is an indication that the skilled person
`
`would not have considered smaller groups for increasing the efficiency of the
`
`polymerase incorporation step. In particular because D14 suggests that 3-O-
`
`allyl is not efficiently incorporated by a polymerase and D4 (page 4265, right
`
`column) suggests groups which have in the opposed patent been found not to
`
`be useful in SBS, namely 3’-O-methyl-dATP ,3’-O-methyl-dTTP and 3’-O-(2-
`
`nitrobenzyl)-dATP, as interesting DNA synthesis terminators.
`
`17.4
`
`Also D4, which mention allyl ethers do not point to the use of small groups and
`
`do not point to the specific allyl group mentioned in claim 1.
`
`17.5
`
`D13 (column 25, lines 48-51) characterises a nitrobenzyloxycarbonyl (NBOC)
`
`group as being “small” and therefore does not point to the use of small groups
`
`as defined in claim 1 of the opposed patent.
`
`17.6
`
`Thus, the OD preliminarily is of the opinion that claim 1 involves an inventive
`
`step.
`
`18
`
`19
`
`With respect to independent claims 3 and 5, the objections from the OP are
`
`based on the same line of argumentation and therefore preliminarily and for the
`same reasons as outlined for claim 1 does not convince the OD that their
`
`subject-matter lack an inventive step.
`
`The dependent claims are considered as involving an inventive step at least for
`
`the same reasons as the independent claims.
`
`EPO Form 2906 01.91TRI
`
`

`

`Datum
`
`Date
`Date
`
`06.08.2020
`
`Blatt
`
`Sheet
`Feuille
`
`8
`
`Anmelde-Nr:
`
`ApplicationNo:
`Demande n°:
`
`15 195 765.].
`
`Ill. Conclusion
`
`Both parties have requested oral proceedings in case their requests cannot be
`
`allowed and the OD therefore summons the parties to oral proceedings.
`
`EPO Form 2906 01.91TRI
`
`