In decision T 1254/24, the European Patent Office Board of Appeal dismissed the opponent's appeal and maintained European Patent No. 2 163 423. In its interpretation of feature M 9 of claim 1, the Board held that the slot must be formed in the rigid shell rather than in the cover, and on that basis found the patent novel over the Apollo and Odyssey seats and document D 1.
The opponent appealed against the interlocutory decision of the Opposition Division. That decision found that, account being taken of the amendments made by the patent proprietor according to the main request, European Patent No. 2 163 423 and the invention to which it relates meet the requirements of the European Patent Convention.
The Board of Appeal decided to dismiss the appeal.
The outcome of the appeal turned on the interpretation of feature M 9 of claim 1. That claim 1 corresponds to claim 1 of auxiliary request 21 in decision T 0239/20.
The Board considered that claim 1 defines the seat by structural features such as a rigid shell, a cavity, a cover, a removable pad and a slot, combined with functional limitations, and is therefore not limited to the seat actually being in the belt-storage (booster cushion) state; the key question is whether the structure disclosed in the prior-art seats is suitable for that state and can still be used as a child car seat.
The Board held that "the belt-storage cavity is formed with a slot" can only be understood to mean that the slot must be located in the part of the rigid shell that constitutes the cavity, and not in the cover; a belt that passes only through a slot in the cover is not a slot within the meaning of feature M 9.
The Board further stated that the slot of feature M 9 is a structural feature of the rigid shell constituting the cavity and must exist when the cover is closed, whether or not pressure is applied; a gap between the edge of the cavity and the cover that arises depending on how closely the cover fits or is pressed down, or merely because the belt prevents the cover from closing completely, is not a slot "formed in" the cavity.
The Board found that the subject-matter of claim 1 is novel over the Apollo and Odyssey child car seats and document D 1 (Article 54 of the European Patent Convention).
As regards configurations 1 to 6 of the Apollo seat, the Board accepted that configurations 5 and 6 appear to show feature M 8, but found that none of the configurations discloses feature M 9.
Prepared by Liangma Legalmark Trademark Team from public industry information for general information only. It is not legal advice on a specific matter. Editorial standards ↗
← Back to news