Glossary

from the latter – An a posteriori conclusion can only be drawn after an analysis of the facts. See also a posteriori

from the former – An a priori conclusion is a conclusion that is necessarily true (by logic or simple inspection of obvious facts). It should not be necessary to perform any analysis to come to the conclusion. See also a posteriori

from the beginning

Written statement made under oath. False statements in a affidavit result in perjury.

“friend of the court”: A person who is not a party to the proceedings, but has an interest in the outcome and files his opinion in the proceedings.

in good faith, without any intention to harm

Computer-implemented Invention

“… an expression intended to cover claims which involve computers, computer networks or other programmable apparatus whereby prima facie one or more of the features of the claimed invention are realised by means of a program or programs.” (Guideline for Examination, C-IV 2.3.6 Programs for computers)

European Patent Convention: An international treaty establishing a joint patent prosecution procedure among a number of European countries.

and others. Used mostly when referring to persons/ parties.e

et sequentes: and the following (specifically when referring to pages, sections, articles, etcetera)

By or for one party. Without involvement of an adverse party. See also inter partes

in the case, in the matter (of)

in its entirety

below (used in references). See also supra

amongst other things

With involvement of both/ all parties. See also ex parte

provisional, temporary

The requirement that a claim in a patent is not obvious in the light of the prior art. Article 56 EPC defines inventive step.

with necessary changes

The requirement that a claim of a patent consists of a feature or combination of features that has or have not been publicly disclosed before the patent was filed (or before its priority date). Novelty is specifically defined in Article 54 of the EPC.

in or of itself

The “person skilled in the art”, “skilled person”, “man skilled in the art”, or “skilled man” is a legal fiction of a person that knows all content of the state of the art of a patent application in the technical art of the subject-matter of the patent application. In contrast to knowing everything that was disclosed in the technical art, the person skilled in the art has great difficulty combining the knowlegde of different disclosures. The notion of the person skilled in the art is used amongst other things in assessing inventive step (Art. 56 EPC) and in determining what knowledge can actually be learned from a disclosure.

at first view, without the need for further investigation. For example in the late filing of documents: Late filed documents should be prima facie highly relevant to be admissable. If the document does not appear to be highly relevant at first glance, they will not be admitted.

for the sake of form

change to worse: The principle of reformatio in peius means the outcome of an appeal is worse to the appellant than the appealed decision. In G9/92 the Enlarged Board of Appeal decided that in case of a single appellant in appeal proceedings, reformatio in peius is prohibited.

decided matter: The matter has already been decided and is not or no longer appealable.

“without which nothing”: essential

The state of the art of a patent application is comprised of all public disclosures that were disclosed before the date of filing of a patent application (or before its priority date). The state of the art is defined in Article 54(2) EPC.

above (used in references). See also infra

namely