← Danmark

ECLI:DK:OLR:2023:BS0000005815 Sø- og Handelsrettens kendelser om midlertidige forbud og påbud baseret på patent og brugsmodelrettigheder stadfæstes me

Obsah (5)Article 123Article 56Article 52Article 84Article 83

ØSTRE LANDSRET KENDELSE afsagt den 20. oktober 2023 Sag BS-25520/2022-OLR (10. afdeling) Power A/S og Huawei Technologies (Denmark) ApS og Huawei Technologies Sweden AB (advokat Morten Achilles Bruus

Article 123(2) EPC.

Concerning feature 1.5, paragraph [0074] relating to the embodiment of figure 10, indicates that a "small volume exists between the suspension member 1005 and an upper side of the PCB 1002". Paragraph [0078] relating to the embodiment of figure 11, indicates that "a small volume exists between the suspension member 1106 and a tower side of the PCB 1103". The opposition division is of the preliminary opinion that there is no basis in the description of these embodiments for the broa-der formulation "a volume (909, 1013, 1115) exists between the suspension member (906, 1005,1106) and an outer surface of the first PCB (902, 1002, 1103)" according to feature 1.5 which encompasses geometries for which there appears to be no basis in the application as filed,

Article 123(2) EPC.

25 … 3.5 Opposition based on Article 100(a) EPC - inventive step The opponent alleges that claim 1 of the granted patent is not inventive with respect to D5 in combination with D8 or D

  1. 3.5.1 Inventive step of device claim 1 starting from document D5 As indicated above, the opposition division considers that the difference between the device of claim 1 and the device of document D5 is features 1.2.4-1.2.7 of the MEMS microphone. The objective technical problem solved by the distinguishing features is "how to implement the MEMS microphone device of D5". The skilled person considering the above technical problem would be aware of document D8 which is cited in the page 1 of D6 and discloses (the references in parentheses applying to document D8): - the MEMS microphone comprising a MEMS cartridge according to feature 1.2.4; see figure 3 of D8, the MEMS die 312 comprises a cartridge; - a membrane (diaphragm) according to feature 1.2.5; see D8, column 5, lines 4-8 and figure 3; - a front chamber (space facing the sound port 306) according to feature 1.2.6; see figure 3; - a back chamber (space where the integrated circuit die is located) within which back chamber a signal processor (integrated circuit die 314) is provided according to feature 1.2.7; see D8, column 10, lines 26-34 and figure
  2. The skilled person would therefore arrive at the subject-matter of claim 1 without the exercise of inventive skill. The subject-matter of claim 1 does, therefore, not involve an inventive step over D5 and D6, in combination with D8,

Article 56EPC.

The opposition division is further of the preliminary opinion that an alternative inventive step objection can be based on D5 and D6, in combination with the embodiment of figure 3 of D

  1. 3.5.2 Inventive step of the dependent claims The opponent alleges that dependent claims 2-6 are not inventive. The opposition division is nevertheless of the preliminary opinion that it would be hindsight to implement the additional 26 features of the dependent claims in the vibration sensor of document D
  2. 3.6 Preliminary opinion for the main request On the basis of the submissions by both parties, the opposition division is of the preliminary opinion that the patent in suit contains subject matter which extends beyond the content of the parent application as filed,

Article 123

(2)EPC and that the subject matter of the claim 1 is not inventive,

Article 52(1) and Article 56 EPC.

The grounds for opposition under Articles 100(

  1. a)and 100(
  2. c)EPC appear to prejudice maintenance of the patent as granted.” Opposition Divisions foreløbige vurdering var herudover, at der ikke var grundlag for de øvrige rejste indsigelser om manglende basis eller for de fremsatte indsigelser om manglende beskrivelse og manglende nyhed. Endvidere vurderedes det, at patentet ville kunne opretholdes i ændret form i overensstemmelse med Sonion Nederland B.V’s anmodning herom. I Opposition Divisions endelige afgørelse af 25. maj 2023 hedder det blandt andet: ”3 Opposition based on Article 100(
  3. c)EPC 3.1 Basis for claim 1 Claim 1 extends beyond the scope of the application as filed,

Article 123(2) EPC.

Claim 1 is based on original claim 1 with the addition of features 1.2.1 to 1.2.7, 1.3.1 to 1.3.3, 1.5 and 1.6 and with the amendment of feature 1.3 to replace “movements” with “vibrations” and of feature 1.4 to replace “pressure detecting arrangement” with “MEMS microphone” . In the following analysis, reference will be made to the A1 publication as a basis for the original filing. The opposition division considers that the embodiment of figures 10 and 11 provides a basis for the MEMS microphone according to feature 1.2.

  1. The opposition division considers that the embodiments of figures 10 and 11 provide a basis for a single PCB as defined in feature 1.2.
  2. It is noted that the division considers that the embodiment of figure 9 defines top and bottom PCBs inextricably linked and does not provide a basis for a single PCB as defined in feature 1.2.
  3. 27 The opposition division considers that paragraph [0073] referring to an acoustical opening in the embodiment of figure 10 and paragraph [0077] referring to an acoustical opening in the embodiment of figure 11 provide a basis for feature 1.2.
  4. The opposition division considers that paragraph [0073] referring to the embodiment of figure 10 and paragraph [0077] referring to the embodiment of figure 11 provide a basis for features 1.2.5,1.2.6,1.2.7,1.3.1,1.3.2 and 1.3.
  5. The opposition division considers that paragraphs [0073] and [0077] and figures 10 and 11 in addition to paragraph [0033] (which refers to a "throughgoing opening [...] acoustically connected to the intermediate volume") provide a basis for feature 1.
  6. Concerning feature 1.4, paragraphs [0071] and [0073] relating to the embodiment of figure 10, describe a "pressure variation generator arranged on top of at least part of the MEMS microphone". Paragraphs [0075] and [0077] relating to the embodiment of figure 11, describe a "pressure variation generator arranged on top of a MEMS microphone" and "the pressure variation generator is secured to the PCB". The opposition division considers that there is no basis in the description of these embodiments for the broader formulation "the pressure generating arrangement is secured to an exterior surface portion of the MEMS microphone" according to feature 1.4,

Article 123(2) EPC.

Concerning feature 1.5, paragraph [0074] relating to the embodiment of figure 10, indicates that a "small volume exists between the suspension member 1005 and an upper side of the PCB 1002". Paragraph [0078] relating to the embodiment of figure 11, indicates that "a small volume exists between the suspension member 1106 and a lower side of the PCB 1103". The opposition division considers that the term "small"imposes a certain limitation on the size of the volume and that its omission contravenes Article 123

(2)EPC. In addition, the skilled person understands that a PCB is a three dimensional board with an upper and a lower main surfaces of greater dimensions than its side surfaces. The terms terms "upper" and "lower" define that the volume as being either above or below the main surfaces. The replacement of the terms "upper" or "lower" by "outer" encompasses geometries in which the volume can be delimited by a side surface of the PCB for which there is no basis in the application as filed,

Article 123(2) EPC.

3.2 Counter arguments of the proprietor Re. feature 1.4 28 During the oral proceedings, the proprietor argues that feature 1 .4 relates to how the pressure generating arrangement is secured to the microphone. The skilled reader understands that the portion of the microphone to which it is attached is irrelevant and that basis for the broader wording can be found in original claim 1 and paragraphs [0026] and [0027] of the description. The opposition division is not convinced by this argument. Paragraphs [0026] and [0027] describe a vibration sensor with a general pressure detecting arrangement and indicate that the pressure generating arrangement may be secured to an external surface portion of the pressure detecting arrangement. Claim 1 now defines a specific pressure detecting arrangement comprising a MEMS microphone which is thus a specific component of the pressure detecting arrangement. The embodiments of figures 10 and 11 only provide a basis for a particular location of the pressure generating arrangement with respect to the MEMS microphone and the formulation of feature 1.4 is an impermissible intermediate generalisation,

Article 123(2) EPC.

Re. feature 1.5 During the oral proceedings, the proprietor argues that the embodiments of figures 9, 10 and 11 define the volume as being small but that it is not a necessary feature. They point out that in paragraphs [0029] and [0033] the volume is described as an "intermediate" volume. Moreover, with reference to the Guidelines F IV, 4.6.2, they consider that the term "small"would not impose any further limitation to the volume. The opposition division is not convinced by this argument. Paragraphs [0029] and [0033] are in the general section of the description and claim 1 has now been amended in accordance with the specific embodiments of figures 10 and 11. Paragraphs [0074] and [0078] respectively related to the embodiments of figures 10 and 11 consistently refer to a "small" volume and further define what should be understood by "small". The omission of the term "small" therefore contravenes Article 123

(2)EPC. 3.3 Counter arguments of the opponent Re. feature 1.3.1 During the oral proceedings, the opponent argues that paragraph [0065] explicitly teaches that the inside of the housing of the pressure variation generator must be completely sealed and that the omission of this property of the housing in feature 1.3.1 extends the subject matter of the claim beyond the content of the application as filed. 29 The opposition division considers that the embodiments of figure 10 and 11, which form the basis for claim 1, do not include this additional feature and its omission does not contravene Article 123
(2)EPC. 4 Conclusion for the main request On the basis of the submissions by both parties, the opposition division considers that the subject matter of independent claim 1 extends beyond the scope of the application as filed,

Article 123(2) EPC.

The ground for opposition under Article 100(c) EPC prejudices maintenance of the patent as granted. First auxiliary request (auxiliary request 0E) 5 Claim 1 Claim 1 of auxiliary request 0E reads as follows (text formatting and labelling according to the notice of opposition; the underlined and struck-through text corresponds to the amendments with respect to claim 1 of the main request): … 6 Admissibility Auxiliary request 0E is admissible. … 7 Article 84 EPC 7.1 The subject matter of claim 1 is not clear,

the requirements of Article 84 EPC. The term "small" is based on paragraphs [0074] and [0078] of the description. The clarity of this term should therefore be analysed in accordance with G3/14. This term is a relative term which is unclear due to the fact that its meaning may change depending on the context. It does not have a well recognised meaning in the context of vibration sensors and MEMS microphones. The limitation of the relative term "small" is therefore not clear,

Article 84EPC (see Guidelines F-IV, 4.6.1).

7.2 Counter arguments of the proprietor The proprietor refers to paragraphs [0074] and [0078] which define the term "small" within the context of the application and 30 refers to Guidelines F-IV, 4.6.2 arguing that this term should be interpreted in its least restrictive possible way. Moreover, a MEMS microphone has a standard size from which the dimension of the volume can be inferred. The opposition division nevertheless considers that the claim must be clear from the person skilled in the art from the wording of the claim alone and the limitation imposed by the MEMS microphone on the volume is unclear since the term refers to a volume external to the MEMS microphone not to the size of the microphone. Second auxiliary request (auxiliary request 0F) 8 Claim 1 Claim 1 of auxiliary request OF reads as follows (text formatting and labelling according to the notice of opposition; the underlined and struck-through text corresponds to the amendments with respect to claim 1 of the main request): … 9 Admissibility Auxiliary request 0F is not admissible. … Third auxiliary request (request 1G) 10 Claim 1 Claim 1 of auxiliary request 1G reads as follows (text formatting and labelling following the proprietor's labelling in the letter of 04.07.2022; the underlined and struck-through text corresponds to the amendments with respect to claim 1 of the main request): … 11 Admissibility Auxiliary request 1G is admissible. ... 12 Article 84 EPC Claim 1 is clear in the sense of Article 84 EPC. 31 The opponent argues that the replacement of the terms "first"and "second" by "top" and "bottom" and the reference to the "upper surface of the top PCB" renders the claim unclear as it is not clear whether protection is sought for a single orientation of the device or whether other orientations are also covered by the scope of the claim. The opposition division considers that the reference to "top" and "bottom" PCBs defines the relative orientation of these components with respect to each other within the vibration sensor. The skilled person would understand that when the vibration sensor is oriented such that the top PCB is above the bottom PCB, the suspension member is above the top PCB such that a volume exists between the suspension member and an upper surface of the top PCB. Other positions of the device as a whole are also covered by the scope of claim 1. 13 Article 123

(3)EPC 13.1 Claim 1 complies with the requirements of Article 123
(3)EPC. The feature "the pressure generating arrangement is secured to an exterior surface portion of the MEMS microphone" of granted claim 1 has been amended to "the pressure generating arrangement is secured to the top PCB
(902)and is arranged on top of the MEMS microphone". 13.2 The opponent argues that the amended expression does not necessarily imply that the pressure generating arrangement is secured to an exterior surface of the top PCB. A PCB is a three dimensional element and the pressure generating amendment may be secured (i.e. fastened) to its lower surface or to the side whilst remaining on top of the MEMS microphone. 13.3 The opposition division is not convinced by the arguments of the opponent for the following reasons. The opponent does not contest that the top PCB is an external element of the MEMS microphone and that the pressure generating arrangement is located above the top PCB. The opposition division interprets the expression "the pressure generating arrangement is secured to an exterior surface portion of the MEMS microphone" of original claim 1 as meaning that the pressure generating arrangement is fixed with respect to the exterior surface portion of the MEMS microphone in the sense that it is not loose with respect to this surface. This does not necessarily imply that the fixing means must be in contact with the exterior surface. The amendment "the pressure generating arrangement is secured to the top PCB
(902)and is arranged on top of the MEMS microphone" implies that pressure generating arrangement is located above the exterior surface of the top PCB and it is fixed with respect to the entire top PCB. Therefore, it is also fixed with respect to the exterior surface of the top PCB irrespective of the location of means which fix the pressure generating 32 arrangement. For this reason, the opposition division considers that the contested amendment does not broaden the scope of protection and complies with Article 123
(3)EPC. 14 Article 123
(2)EPC 14.1 Claim 1 complies with the requirements of Article 123
(2)EPC. The opposition division considers that claim 1 is based on the embodiment of figure
  1. Namely, features 1.7 and 1.7.1 are based on paragraph [0063]; features 1.7.2,1.7.3,1.8 as well as the amendments of features 1.4 and 1.5 are based on paragraph [0064] and feature 1.9 is based on paragraph [0068]. 14.2 Counter arguments of the opponent The opponent argues that original claim 6 provides a basis for a second PCB. Original claim 6 depends on original claim 5 which defines the MEMS microphone as "stand-alone and self-contained" as also mentioned in paragraph [0032]. The omission of the feature "stand alone and self contained" is an impermissible intermediate generalisation. Moreover, the combination of original claims 5 and 6 defines a microphone package comprising additional features in addition to the claimed ones. If the embodiment of figure 9 is to be considered the sole basis for the claim, paragraph [0065] requires that the housing seals the inside completely. The omission of this further limitation in feature 1.3.1 is an impermissible intermediate generalisation. The opposition division considers that the sole basis for claim 1 is paragraphs [0062]-[0069] describing the embodiment of figure
  2. These paragraphs provide a literal basis for the introduced amendments. There is no mention in these paragraphs to a "stand-alone and self-contained microphone"and therefore the omission of this feature complies with Article 123
(2)EPC. Moreover, the opposition division does not regard the presence of a housing which either seals the inside completely or includes a small hole as defined in paragraph [0065] as being an essential feature, inextricably linked to the remaining features of the claim. A sealed housing would be desirable if the vibration sensor were to be used in an environment with high level of acoustic noise but unnecessary otherwise. 15 Article 83 EPC 15.1 Claim 1 complies with the requirements of Article 83 EPC. 15.2 The opponent argues that, according to paragraphs [0001], [0003] and [0004], the object of the invention is to provide a 33 vibration sensor having a lowfrequency roll-off response not provided by electronic means. According to paragraphs [0006], [0010] and [0015] this low-frequency roll-off response is provided by an acoustical opening of particular dimensions. No single example is disclosed that defines an acoustical opening with a specific dimension in combination with a MEMS microphone having a specific frequency response curve and a movable mass of certain weight. In fact, the ranges disclosed for the movable mass and the volume span several orders of magnitude and for such broad ranges several examples would be required. The skilled person is thus faced with the problem of having to conduct a trial and error program and the invention is not sufficiently disclosed. They also point out that figures 5 and 6 depict various simulated low-frequency roll-off without indicating any parameters. The opponent refers to Guidelines F-lll, 1 according to which at least one way of carrying out the invention must be described and to Guidelines, F-lll, 4, according to which the burden of proof shifts to the proprietor for those cases where the patent does not describe at least one way of carrying out the invention. Finally, the opponent argues that the volume ranges defined in feature 1.9 have no lower boundary which does not allow the skilled person to perform the invention over the whole claimed range,

Article 83EPC.

15.3 The opposition division agrees that broad ranges are disclosed for various parameters such as the mass, the volume and the area of the suspension member. However, it cannot be excluded that a low-frequency roll-off response can be obtained over these broad ranges. The opposition division considers that, in the present case, the burden of proof of insufficiency is on the opponent (see Case Law of the Boards of Appeal, 10th edition, III G.5.1.2 c). The opponent has not proved that despite selecting values of the moveable mass, the volume and the area of the suspension member within the disclosed ranges they were unable to put the invention into practice and achieve a low frequency response curve. Concerning the volume ranges defined in feature 1.9, the opposition division considers that the skilled person understands that any volume greater than 0 and lower than the claim upper boundaries is covered by the scope of protection of the claim. Again, the opponent has not proved that a low frequency response cannot be achieved for volumes close to

  1. The opposition division is therefore of the opinion that the invention defined by the claims is sufficiently disclosed. 16 Article 56 EPC 34 The opponent raises inventive step objections with respect to claim 1 when starting from either document D4 or D5 as closest prior art. … The opposition division considers that the reasoning of the opponent is ex post facto as nothing in D4 would prompt the skilled person to replace the structure of D4 by an alternative structure with two PCBs, in particular, taking account that the structure of D4 already comprises a wiring 11 which could provide additional electric connections. Regarding the second partial problem, the opponent considers that it is common general knowledge that an opening in a vibrating diaphragm provides damping of its resonance frequency. If the skilled person had any doubts about perforating a vibrating barrier diaphragm that provide sealing functionality, document D13 (see paragraph [0047] and figure 2A disclosing an equalization aperture 213) discloses such an arrangement. The opposition division also considers that this reasoning of the opponent is ex post facto. The skilled person wanting to implement a pressure equalization aperture in the device of D4 would rather perforate the electrode diaphragm 21 than the barrier diaphragm
  2. … 16.2 Inventive step of device claim 1 starting from document D5 in combination with D11 and common general knowledge evidenced bv D1 16.2.1 The subject-matter of the claim 1 is inventive when starting from document D5 in combination with D11 and common general knowledge evidenced by D
  3. The embodiment of figure 1 of document D5 discloses (the references in parentheses applying to the translation D5a of document D5): - a vibration sensor according to feature 1.1; see D5a, paragraph [0001]; - a pressure detecting arrangement adapted to detect generated pressure variations, and provide an output signal in response to the detected pressure variations according to feature 1.2; see D5a paragraph [0008]; - a MEMS microphone (INMP504 including PCB 7 located on top of it) according to feature 1.2.1; see D5a paragraphs [0012], [0035] and [0040]; 35 - a housing having a top PCB

(7)according to feature 1.2.2; see D5a figure 1; - an acoustical opening (sound hole) provided in the top PCB
(7)according to feature 1.2.3; see D5a paragraphs [0035]; - a pressure generating arrangement adapted to generate pressure variations in response to vibrations thereof according to feature 1.3; see D5a paragraph [0008]; - the pressure generating arrangement comprising a housing (upper cover 1) according to feature 1.3.1; see D5a paragraphs [0037]; - a suspension member (elastic diaphragm 6) according to feature 1.3.2; see D5a paragraphs [0035]; - a moveable mass (counterweight mass 2) secured to the suspension member
(6)according to feature 1.3.3; see D5a paragraphs [0035]; - wherein the pressure generating arrangement is secured to the top PCB (lower cover 3) and is arranged on top of the MEMS microphone according to feature 1.4; see D5a, paragraphs [0035] and figure 1; - wherein a volume (cavity 10) exists between the suspension member
(6)and an upper side of the top PCB
(7)according to feature 1.5; see D5a, paragraphs [0035] and figure 1; - wherein the acoustical opening (sound hole) in the top PCB
(7)is acoustically connected to the volume
(10)according to feature 1.6; see D5a, paragraphs [0035] and figure
  1. The difference between the device of claim 1 and the device of document D5 is: 1) a configuration of the MEMS microphone with two PCBs and connecting vias according to features 1.2.4-1.2.7, 1.7, 1.7.1-1.7.3; 2) the suspension member and the moveable mass comprise respective acoustical openings according to feature 1.8; 3) a volume having dimensions according to feature 1.
  2. These three differences can be considered independent, the first difference relates to electronics; the second difference to acoustics and the third to dimensions. Therefore they do not provide a synergistic effect. The partial problems can thus be identified as 1) to implement a MEMS microphone with a low signal to noise ratio; 2) to 36 dampen the resonance frequency of the barrier diaphragm and 3) to provide a small scale vibration sensor. … 17 Interlocutory Decision The main request contains subject matter which extends beyond the content of the application as filed,

Article 123(2) EPC.

Article 100(c) EPC therefore prejudices maintenance of the patent as granted. The subject matter of claim 1 of the first auxiliary request (request 0E) is not clear,

the requirements of Article 84 EPC. The second auxiliary request (request 0F) is not admissible in accordance with Rule 116 EPC. The subject matter of the claims of the third auxiliary request (request 1G) meets the requirements of the EPC. The opposition division therefore decides to maintain the patent in amended form on the basis of the third auxiliary request (request 1G) pursuant to Article 101

(3)(a) EPC provided that the requirements of Rule 82
(2)EPC are met.” Opposition Division tog således ikke indsigelser svarende til Huawei og Sonys anbringende (
  1. i)om, at træk 1.3.1 i krav 1 i EP 621 ("hvor trykgenereringsanordningen omfatter et hus (904, 1003, 1102),") – og det tilsvarende træk i krav 1 i DK 120 og krav 1 i DK 078 – er udtryk for en utilladelig mellemliggende generalisering og derfor mangler basis, til følge. Opposition Division tog derimod indsigelser svarende til Huawei og Sonys nye anbringender (
  2. ii)og (iii) om manglende basis til følge, idet Opposition Division imidlertid samtidig fandt, at patentet ville kunne opretholdes i ændret form. Nedenfor ses krav 1 i det reviderede kravsæt med ændringsmarkeringer i forhold til det oprindelige kravsæt: ” 37 ” Sonion Nederland B.V. og GoerTek Inc. har indgivet appel til Technical Boards of Appeal. Appellen har opsættende virkning. Ved brev af 19. juni 2023 til Patent og Varemærkestyrelsen indleverede Sonion Nederland B.V. vedrørende brugsmodellen DK 2020 00121, som ikke er påberåbt i denne sag, et revideret kravsæt og anførte: 38 “A Notice of Opposition was filed against the parent European patent EP 3 279 621 B1 in August 2021 – additional arguments were submitted by the Opponent in February 2022. An oral hearing was held on May 10 2023 where EP 3 279 621 B1 was maintained in amended form – more particularly in accordance with auxiliary request 1G. The Interlocutory Decision dated 25 May 2023 from the Opposition Division including allowed auxiliary request 1G is enclosed with this letter. Claim amendments: The Proprietor now aims at bringing the claims of the present utility model BA 2020 00121 in line with the allowed auxiliary request 1G with the exception of the subject-matter of claim 9 (now claim 2). Arguments for this exception are provided below. In the amended set of claims the subject-matter of essentially claims 2-8 have been incorporated into new claim 1. It should though be noted that the wording of new claim 1 has been adapted to paragraphs [0062] – [0070], and thus the embodiment in Fig. 9, of EP 3 279 621 A1 (in the following denoted EP 621 A1). For example the terms “first PCB” and “second PCB” have been replaced by “top PCB” and “bottom PCB” , respectively. It is submitted that the above amendments do not extend beyond the parent application as filed. Omission of the subject-matter of claim 9: With respect to the subject-matter of claim 9 the relevant part of granted claim 1 of EP 3 279 621 B1 reads as follows: -“…and wherein a volume (909, 1013, 1115) exists between the suspension member (906, 1005, 1106) and an outer surface of the first PCB (902, 1002, 1103), and wherein the acoustical opening (910, 1010, 1108) in the first PCB (902, 1002, 1103) is acoustically connected to the volume (909, 1013, 1115).” In short, during the course of the oral hearing held on 10 May 2023, the Opposition Division arrived at the conclusion that the Proprietor’s omission of the term “small” in granted claim 1 in relation to the volume
(909), cf. paragraph [0068] of EP 621 A1, violates of Art 123
(2)EPC. An incorporation of “small” in claim 1 would, in the opinion of the Opposition Division, render claim 1 unclear. In order to comply with this potential clarity objection, but still address the added subject-matter objection mentioned above, the subject-matter of claim 9 (claim 4 in EP 621 B1) was incorporated into claim 1, cf. in particular sections 3.2 (last paragraph), 7.1 and 11 of the Interlocutory Decision from the Opposition Division. 39 Thus, the incorporation of the subject-matter of claim 9 (claim 4 in EP 621 B1) into claim 1 has its origin in a combined added subject-matter/clarity issue – at least in the opinion of the Opposition Division. However, we disagree with the Opposition Division’s findings, and respectfully submit that the subject-matter of claim 9 can indeed, for a number of reasons, be omitted in claim 1 – these reasons are as follows: 1) With respect to the volume
(909)existing between the suspension member
(906)and an upper side of the top PCB
(902)(wording of appended claim 1) it is initially noted that paragraph [0068] of EP 621 A1 in its second sentence also omits the term “small” when referring to the volume
(909). Thus, the disclosure of the parent application as filed is not limited to this volume being “small” . For this reason alone it is submitted that the omission of the term “small” is allowable in view of Art 123
(2)EPC. As a consequence thereof, the subject-matter of claim 9 is not required added to claim 1. 2) Omission of the term “small” is allowable since it is evident for a skilled person that claim 1 relates to a vibration sensor of limited/small dimensions – for example due to the incorporation of the MEMS microphone. Thus, a volume will inherently be small when it is delimited between the pressure generating arrangement and the PCB forming part of the MEMS microphone housing. Also, for this reason the omission of the term “small” is allowable in view of Art 123
(2)EPC – and as a consequence thereof, the subject matter of claim 9 is not required added to claim 1. 3) Although being referred to as an intermediate volume it is also noted that paragraph [0033] and original claim 7 of EP 621 A1 specify that an [intermediate] volume, being the volume
(909), may exist between an outer surface of the first PCB of the MEMS microphone [unit] and [a surface of] the suspension member. It is noted that claim 7 of EP 621 A1 corresponds to claim 7 of the present utility model application. Thus, neither paragraph [0033] nor original claim 7 refer to the volume
(909)using the term “small” . Reference is in this respect also made to paragraphs [0007] and [0014] which also fail to use the term “small” in relation to the pressure transmitting volume which is the volume
(909). Thus, ample basis can be found in the parent application as filed for this volume without the limitation of it being “small” - the subject matter of claim 9 is thus not required added to claim 1. 4) Moreover, it is submitted that adapting the generic disclosure of paragraph [0033] and original claim 7 of EP 621 A1 (with respect to the positioning of the volume) to the specific disclosure of paragraph [0068] and Fig. 9 would lead a skilled person directly to the phrase of claim 1 namely that a volume
(909)exists between the suspension member
(906)and an upper side of the top PCB
(902), i.e. without the subject-matter of claim
  1. 40 5) Finally, including the term “small” to claim 1 will not alter the scope of protection of claim
  2. It is acknowledged that the term “small” per se may be considered a relative term. However, according to GL, Part F, Chapter IV, section 4.6.2, a relative term in a claim is to be interpreted in the least restrictive possible way when determining the extension of the subjectmatter of the claim. As a consequence, a relative term in a claim is typically not limiting the scope of protection of the claim. Thus, if the term “small” was included in claim 1, it would not be limiting the claim’s scope of protection. As a consequence, the omission of the term “small” does not extend the subject-matter of claim 1 in an unallowable manner. Thus, the omission of “small” is therefore in line with Art 123
(2)EPC. In conclusion, when the term “small” is not required, nor is the subjectmatter of claim 9 which were entered merely to cater for the clarity objection – not the objection as to added subject-matter. It is thus submitted that amended claim 1 is supported by the parent application as originally filed. …” Med hensyn til den herefter udstedte danske brugsmodel DK 2020 00121 (”DK 121”), som er registreret og offentliggjort den
  1. juli 2023, har Patent- og Varemærkestyrelsen godkendt et kravsæt svarende til det den
  2. juni 2023 indleverede reviderede kravsæt, dvs. en udformning svarende til det ved afgørelsen fra Opposition Division godkendte kravsæt, men uden at det oprindelige krav 4 er inkorporeret i krav
  3. Dokumenter af betydning for krænkelsesspørgsmålet Sonion har henvist til følgende udaterede billeder af analyserede VPU'er fra WF1000XM4 (det ene af de tre stridsprodukter): 41 Der er tillige henvist til følgende billeder. 42 [ Foto udeladt pga. personfølsomme oplysninger ] Huawei og Sony har vedrørende ækvivalensspørgsmålet henvist til figur 7, 8 og 9 samt afsnit 15, 39 og 41 i beskrivelsen i ansøgning om US2010/0183174 A1 ”Suvanto et. al” , som for Sø- og Handelsretten var påberåbt som modhold. Afsnit 15 og 39 lyder: “[ 0015 ] FIG . 7 illustrates a cross section of a fourth alternative top port package
  4. The fourth alternative package 180 resembles an inversion of the bottom port package 130 of FIG. 3 (i.e., turning the package 130 of FIG. 3 upside down). The fourth alternative package 180 includes a top substrate 182 having a top aperture 120 leading to the front cavity
  5. The other side of the microphone 190, in conjunction with the wall 118, the support 108, the top substrate 182 and a bottom substrate 184, defines the back cavity
  6. Note, however, that it is assumed that the bottom substrate 184 of the package 180 will be mounted on or connected to a larger substrate (e.g., a PCB) of the device. As such, a number of connections (e.g., the five connections 186 ) are provided to enable the ASIC 114 to communicate with other components of the device. As a non-limiting example, the connections 186 may comprise a series of stacked vias. While providing improved acoustical performance, the fourth alternative top port package 180 is mechanically unreliable ( e.g., fragile and/or susceptible to mechanical forces) and difficult to mass manufacture, particularly due to the required connections. Furthermore, the connections 186 are spaceconsuming and unreliable, and the ASIC must reside on the top 43 substrate 182 or else it would interfere with the membrane of the microphone or significantly increase the front volume (due to its increased height). … [ 0039 ] The exemplary MEMS microphone package 300 shown in FIG. 8 has a number of advantages. The back cavity (interior cavity 324 ) is larger than the front cavity (the other cavity 322 ), thus providing desirable acoustic properties, such as an optimized SNR and an optimized flat frequency response, as non-limiting examples. Furthermore, since the ASIC 314 is on the bottom substrate 312 (i.e., the same substrate that is used for connecting with other components, modules or PCBs) only one or two internal contacts 318, 319 are needed, leading to a simpler design that is more structurally sound than that of the package 180 shown in FIG.
  7. In addition, the implementation of the exemplary package 300 is comparatively easy, particularly as existing production lines (e.g., for MEMS top port microphones) can be used. In some exemplary embodiments, these advantages are provided by usage of the top substrate 310, locating the ASIC 314 on the bottom substrate 314 (e.g., the same substrate that is used for connecting with other components, modules or PCBs or a different substrate than that to which the MEMS microphone is attached) and/or allowing for usage of conventional connections from the package (i.e., from the bottom substrate 314 ). … [ 0041 ] FIG. 9 shows a cross section of another exemplary MEMS microphone package 330 in accordance with the exemplary embodiments of the invention. The exemplary package 330 of FIG. 9 is similar to that of FIG. 8 (package 300) with a few additional components identified. The exemplary MEMS microphone package 330 of FIG. 9 has a metal case 332 surrounding the other components. The metal case 332 does not entirely encase the other components, as evident by the aperture 320 and the exposure of the bottom substrate
  8. The package 330 also includes another internal support structure
  9. In some exemplary embodiments, the internal contacts 318, 319 may be formed on or connected to the other internal support structure 334.” Endvidere har Huawei og Sony henvist til følgende to kinesiske brugsmodelansøgninger: CN 201536417 (‘CN 417’) af
  10. juli 2020, figur 2 og afsnit 24 og 27, som i engelsk oversættelse lyder: “[0024] A side wall 3 is provided with metallized through holes 31, which extend from one end close to the first circuit board 1 to the other end and penetrate through the other end. The metallized through hole 31 can transmit the electrical signal generated by the MEMS 10 chip 4 to 44 the bonding pad
  11. A conductive convex-concave structure (not shown) is provided on at least one surface where first and second circuit boards 1, 2, and the sidewalls 3 are bonded to each other. … [0027] In the MEMS microphone of the utility model, the side walls are simultaneously connected to the first and second circuit boards, with metallized through holes 20 provided on the side walls, such that it is easy for the MEMS microphone to arrange the circuit, and adjust the installation position of the MEMS chip and the arranged position of the sound inlet according to actual needs, so as to achieve flexible installation.” og CN 203368751 (‘CN 751’) af
  12. december 2013 figur 3 og 6 samt afsnit 16 og 28-29 i beskrivelsen, som i engelsk oversættelse lyder: “[0016] It can be seen that the MEMS microphone of the utility model solves the technical problem in the prior art that it is difficult for the MEMS microphone to meet the demands both on convenient installation and excellent acoustic performance at the same time. The MEMS microphone of the utility model is convenient for connection with end products, while possessing excellent and stable acoustic performance. … [0028] As shown in FIG. 3, FIG. 4 and FIG. 5, a MEMS microphone is a rectangular structure, comprising a bottom plate 10c and a MEMS chip 30 provided on the bottom plate 10c. The bottom plate 10c is provided with a housing 20c on a side where the MEMS chip 30 is provided, and the housing 20c is a cylindrical structure with an open end which is combined with the bottom plate 10c. The MEMS chip 30 is electrically connected to the bottom plate10c via two gold wires, and the bottom plate 10c is provided with an acoustic aperture 50c at a position corresponding to an inner cavity of the MEMS chip
  13. A first circuit board 60a is provided on an outer side of a top of the housing 20c, and a bonding pad 40 for electrically connecting the MEMS microphone to the circuit board of the end product is provided on a side of the first circuit board 60a away from the housing 20c. The top of 5 the housing 20c is provided with an opening at a position avoiding the MEMS chip 30, and an electric connector is provided inside the housing 20c and is a second circuit board
  14. One end of the second circuit board 70 is fixed on the bottom plate 10c and electrically connected to the bottom plate 10c, and the other end of the second circuit board 70 is fixed to and electrically 10 connected to the first circuit board 60a by passing through the opening provided at the top of the housing 20c. [0029] As shown in FIG. 6, a gap 80 is made between the second circuit board 70 and the housing 20c, and can connect the rear acoustic cavities on both sides of the second circuit board 70, thereby ensuring that the rear acoustic cavities still have a large volume, and thus 15 ensuring that the acoustic performance of the MEMS microphone remains 45 unchanged. FIG. 6 illustrates only one structure of the electric connector, but in practice the electric connector may have various structural forms. For example, a through-hole is provided in the center of the electric connector, or a groove is provided at the end of the electric connector, etc., as long as the rear acoustic cavity on both sides of the electric connector can be connected.” Eksperterklæringer Der er fremlagt yderligere eksperterklæringer som følger: Supplerende erklæring af
  15. december 2022 udarbejdet af professor MSO Vidne
  16. Supplerende erklæring af
  17. december 2022 udarbejdet af European Patent Attorney Vidne
  18. Supplerende erklæring af
  19. juli 2023 udarbejdet af professor Vidne
  20. Supplerende erklæring af
  21. september 2023 udarbejdet af professor MSO Vidne
  22. Supplerende erklæring af
  23. september 2023 udarbejdet af European Patent Attorney Vidne
  24. Supplerende erklæring
  25. september 2023 udarbejdet af European Patent Attorney, civilingeniør, Vidne
  26. Supplerende erklæring af
  27. september 2023 udarbejdet af professor Vidne
  28. Forklaringer European Patent Attorney Vidne 4, professor MSO Vidne 2, European Patent Attorney Vidne 5 og professor Vidne 1 har afgivet supplerende forklaring. European Patent Attorney Vidne 4 har vedstået sine erklæringer af
  29. december 2022 og
  30. september 2023, idet han har præciseret, at der i sidstnævnte erklæring, side 9,
  31. afsnit, rettelig skal henvises til afsnit [0027] i den kinesiske brugsmodelansøgning CN
  32. Han har supplerende forklaret blandt andet, at han fortsat er partner i Virksomhed K/S. Det er hans opfattelse, at Opposition Divisions afgørelse af
  33. maj 2023 ikke er konsistent. Af afgørelsen fremgår, at der er basis for træk 1.3.1 i krav 1 i EP 621 ("hvor trykgenereringsanordningen omfatter et hus (904, 1003, 1102),"), og at basis herfor skal findes i afsnittene [0062] - [0069], som beskriver figur 9, men 46 samtidig, at trækket ”as long as it seals the inside completely” , der fremgår af afsnit [0065], ikke kan opfattes som et væsentligt træk. Opposition Division udtrykker afdelingens egen holdning, når det i afgørelsen anføres, at forseg-lingen er ønskelig (”desirable”) i et miljø med et højt niveau af akustisk støj, men i øvrigt unødvendig. Denne forudsætning fremgår ikke af afsnittene [0062] - [0069]. Tværtimod fremgår det af afsnit [0065], at det er absolut nødvendigt, at huset er forseglet, og at der kun undtagelsesvist kan tillades et lille hul. Oppo-sition Divisions udeladelse af dette træk i krav 1 er i modstrid med læren fra afsnit [0065] og i strid med gældende EPO-praksis, hvorefter væsentlige træk ikke må udelades. Vendingen ”as long as” viser, at det er afgørende og væsent-ligt, at huset er forseglet.Patentets indhold går derfor ud over indholdet af ansøgningen som indleveret. Han er ikke enig i, at han står alene med den opfattelse, at afsnit [0065] bør afspejles i krav
  34. Han er enig i professor Vidne 2s definition af en “via” i Vidne 2s erklæring af
  35. december 2022, hvorefter "the skilled person understands a “via” (in the art of printed circuit board (PCB) technology) as a small, drilled hole through an insulating substrate and plated or filled with a conductive material that provides electrical connection between opposing surfaces of the insulating substrate. The insulating substrate consists of PCB material." De træk, der fremgår af krav 1 i det udstedte EP 621, repræsenterer det væsent-lige ved opfindelsen. I den forbindelse angår de mere end ti nye træk, som kom ind under udstedelsesprocessen ved EPO, hovedsageligt den strukturelle op-bygning af MEMS-mikrofonen. De nye krav må lige så vel som de oprindelige anses for væsentlige. Det er udtryk for, at væsentlighedsvurderingen kan ændre sig undervejs. En henvisning til ansøgningens afsnit [0001] bidrager ikke til afgørelse af, hvilke træk der er væsentlige, da der som anført er sket ændringer undervejs i sagsbehandlingen. Det er nødvendigt at se på årsagen til tilføjelsen af træk. For EP 621’s vedkommende har der været en længere diskussion om basis under sagsbehandlingen, hvorfor det har været nødvendigt at tilføje flere træk. Der gælder samme kriterier for basis for brugsmodeller som for patenter. Han er enig i, at det af Examining Divisions brev af
  36. november 2020 til Sonion Nederland B.V. fremgår, at der er tale om en klarhedsindvending, og at de træk, der er indeholdt i krav 1 i EP 621, relaterer sig til ansøgningens figur 9, samt at afsnit [0065] ikke nævnes. Der forelå også en klarhedsindvending fra Patent- og Varemærkestyrelsen i styrelsens svar til Sonion Nederland B.V. af
  37. februar 2021 vedrørende ansøgningen om brugsmodel DK
  38. Det er hans opfattelse, at der er forskellige fordele og ulemper forbundet med valget af placeringen af via’er i henholdsvis bagkammer og væg. Det fremgår blandt andet af de to kinesiske brugsmodelansøgninger, CN 417 og CN 751, og af den amerikanske patentansøgning US 174, ”Suvanto et al.” . I sidstnævnte henvises til fire forskellige udførelsesformer af via’er i ansøgningens figur 7-
  39. 47 Af afsnit [0015] i Suvanto fremgår, at via’erne kan placeres som en stablet serie, hvilket har nogle akustiske fordele, men samtidig er mekanisk ustabilt og vanskeligt at fremstille. Af figur 7 fremgår, at de stablede via’er er placeret i bagkammeret. Der er således fordele og ulemper ved at anvende denne udførelsesform. På figur 8-10 er via’erne placeret henholdsvis langs og i sidevæggen. Afsnit [0039] beskriver, at der ved udførelsesformen i figur 8 er nogle akustiske fordele, og at designet er enklere, hvilket gør det strukturelt sundere og mere mekanisk stabilt end de stablede via’er i figur
  40. Placeringen af via’erne i figur 9 udnytter nogle af de samme fordele som udførelsen i figur 8, men kræver en ekstra vægdel. Af den kinesiske brugsmodelansøgning CN 417’s figur 2 fremgår, at via’en er plaeret i en sidevæg, hvor den forbinder den øvre og nedre del af huset. Af ansøgningens afsnit [0013] kan man forstå, at fordelene herved er strukturelle, idet installationen er fleksibel og gør MEMS-chippen og lydindgangen juster-bar. Figur 3 i den anden kinesiske brugsmodelansøgning CN 751 viser en løs-ning, hvor via’erne er placeret i bagkammeret. Den tilvejebringes ved, at der indsættes et separat printkort, der skaber en elektrisk forbindelse mellem det øverste og nederste printkort, hvilket fremgår af afsnit [0029]. Figur 6 i samme ansøgning viser et snit i tværgående retning, og det fremgår her, at det forbind-ende printkort strækker sig mellem øvre og nede printkort, og at der på hver side af printkortet er akustiske åbninger, som indebærer, at der er luft på begge sider af printkortet/via’en. Suvanto og de to kinesiske brugsmodel-ansøgninger viser, at der er fordele og ulemper forbundet med forskellige placeringer af via’er, hvor nogle placeringer vil have akustiske fordele, mens andre vil have tekniske fordele og/eller være lettere at producere. Man kan derfor ikke konkludere, at de forskellige placeringer af via’erne er teknisk ligeartede. Det fremgår ikke direkte af Suvantos omtale af ”the five connections” i afsnit [0015], at der er tale om et boret hul. Dette er heller ikke nødvendigt, når termen ”stacked vias” anvendes, da det er en standardterm. Figur 8 i Suvanto betegner de elektriske forbindelser, del 318 og 319, som ”internal contacts” , men når Suvanto læses i sin helhed, er den overordnede lære, at det kunne være via’er og dermed et boret hul. Man kan ikke på den skematiske figur se et boret hul. Det er rigtigt, at det på tegningen ser ud som om, at via’erne er hæftet på yder-væggen. Af den kinesiske brugsmodelansøgning CN 417 fremgår det af afsnit [0027], at forbindelserne er ”provided on the side walls” , men ser man på figur 2 i ansøgningen, er det tydeligt, at via’erne er placeret inde i sidevæggen. Den kinesiske brugsmodelansøgning CN 751’s angivelse af ”the second circuit board” i afsnit [0029] vil fagmanden forstå som beskrivelse af en via. Han forstår det selv som en betegnelse for et boret hul med en elektrisk forbindelse. Professor MSO Vidne 2 har vedstået sine erklæringer af
  41. december 2022 og
  42. september 2023, idet han har præciseret, at der i sidstnævnte 48 erklæring, side 3,
  43. afsnit,
  44. pkt., rettelig skal henvises til afsnit [0027] i den kinesiske brugsmodelansøgning CN
  45. Han har supplerende forklaret blandt andet, at det ikke er korrekt, når Sonion hævder, at han mangler erfaring inden for ”packaging” og MEMS-teknologi. Han har en mastergrad i MEMS-teknologi, en Ph.d.grad i packaging-teknologi samt 20 års erfaring, herunder med undervisning og forskning, inden for begge områder. Hans forklaring i Sø- og Handelsretten om, at ”[f]orstærkeren (”amplifier”) … ikke [er] i bagkammeret, men definerer indersiden af bagkammeret. Det er kun luft i bagkammeret” , skal forstås i en funktionel kontekst. Hans udsagn ved-rører MEMS-mikrofonens funktion. Bag- og forkammeret er klart definerede begreber, når de anvendes i forbindelse med MEMS-mikrofoner. Bagkammerets rum afgrænses af kammerets loft (øverste printkort), kammerets bund (nederste printkort) samt væggene. Der kan godt være placeret komponenter i bagkam-meret, f.eks. en forstærker, ligesom der kan være placeret møbler i et lokale. Disse komponenter har dog ingen funktionel rolle i bagkammeret, da det er volumen af luft, der har funktionel betydning. Komponenterne vil optage noget af pladsen (volumet) i bagkammeret, men de er ikke relevante for bagkammerets akustiske funktion. I den kinesiske brugsmodelansøgning CN 751 betegner del 70 på figur 3 en elektrisk forbindelse, der er placeret i bagkammeret. Det er dermed et eksempel på en udførelse, hvor via’en er placeret i bagkammeret. Det kan udledes af beskrivelsens afsnit [0029], at der er tale om en via, da der heri nævnes en ræk-ke strukturelle forhold for del 70, ligesom der anvendes beskrivelsen ”a through-hole is provided in the center of the electric connector” . Dette er definitionen på en via. I figur 2 i den anden kinesiske brugsmodelansøgning CN 417 er del 31 via’er, som på tegningen klart er placeret inden i væggen og dermed ikke i bag-kammeret. I beskrivelsens afsnit [0013] nævnes eksempler på fordele ved denne udførelsesmåde, f.eks. at det er en fleksibel installation. I afsnit [0027] anvendes udtrykket ”through-hole” (gennemgående hul), dvs. en via, og det nævnes igen, at denne udførelsesmåde giver fleksibilitet med hensyn til placeringen af via’erne, MEMS-chippen og lydindgangen og indebærer, at via’en nemt kan installeres. De to kinesiske ansøgninger er kun eksempler, men det var velkendt inden for ”state of the art” , at via’er kunne placeres på forskellige måder, og at placering af via’erne i henholdvis bagkammeret og væggen var forbundet med forskellige fordele og ulemper. 49 Det er specificeret i patentkravene i EP 621, at via’erne skal placeres i bagkammeret. Patentbeskrivelsen angiver det samme med næsten samme formulering. Patentets ordlyd er meget klar på dette punkt. Det giver også mening i teknisk forstand. Som det fremgår af de kinesiske brugsmodelansøgninger, vil denne plaering af via’erne være forbundet med visse fordele og ulemper. Figur 9 i patentansøgningen er ikke konsistent, blandt andet med hensyn til skravering af tværtsnittet og de linjer, som afgrænser de enkelte dele fra hinan-den. Det gælder blandt andet del 902 og 904, hvor der ses en afgræns-ningslinje på den del af tegningen, der ses fra siden, men ikke på tværsnittet. Linjen burde have været ført hele vejen rundt. Derfor kan man efter hans opfattelse ikke fæstne lid til figur 9 − som også er en ren skitsetegning – idet den giver rum for forskellige fortolkninger. Med hensyn til del 915 er tegningen heller ikke entydig. Tegningen kan på dette punkt forstås således, at via’erne er placeret, så de støder op til væggen, eller at de er placeret inde i væggen. Der er også den mulighed, at via’erne er placeret i en søjle, som rører væggen. Den vertikale linje burde i givet fald gå længere ned, men som nævnt mangler der en række linjer i tegningen. Hvis tegningen skal forstås sådan, at via’erne er placeret i en søjle, som rører væggen, er der tale om, at via’erne er placeret i bagkammeret, da søjlen vil være omkranset af luft. Fagmanden vil ikke forvente, at søjlen på tegningen er markeret med en afgrænsningslinje, da der i tegningen mangler linjer for en række dele. Læren ifølge patentet er efter hans opfattelse klar, nemlig at via’erne er placeret i bagkammeret. Når han i Sø- og Handelsretten forklarede, at ”via’erne [i stridsrettighederne] heller ikke [går] gennem bagkammeret, men gennem væggen. Det kan man se i stridsrettighedernes figur 9” , hænger det sammen med hans opfattelse af, at figur 9 ikke er entydig og giver rum for forskellige fortolkninger. Som netop præciseret, er det dog hans opfattelse, at der på baggrund af den klare ordlyd af kravet og beskrivelsen kun findes én valid fortolkning, nemlig den at via’erne skal placeres i bagkammeret. I figur 2 i hans erklæring af
  46. december 2022 ses VPU’en fra oven eller fra neden. Væggen er den del, der består af brunt materiale, som har en regel-mæssigt formet yderside og en uensartet formet inderside. Det fremgår klart, at de tre via’er er placeret inden i væggen (det brune materiale). Der er lavet ”through-holes” (gennemgående huller) i væggen. Bagkammeret er det uregel-mæssigt formede område på indersiden af væggen, hvor MEMS-kapslen er placeret. Bagkammeret består af en mængde luft, som omkranser kompo-nenterne på indersiden af væggene. EMI er en forkortelse for elektromagnetisk interferens. EMI-skjoldet er en 50 metallisk overflade, som absorberer elektromagnetiske bølger og forhindrer, at bølgerne når komponenterne, navnlig forstærkeren. EMI-skjoldet er ikke en via. En via defineres som et lille hul, som er boret ind i et PCB eller en anden struk-tur. EMI-skjoldet er ikke boret, men slebet, og det er ikke et lille hul. Figur 4 i hans erklæring af
  47. december 2022 er et tværsnit af GoerTeks VPU, som anvendes i begge stridsprodukterne. På billedet ses den øverste (første) PCB og nederste (anden) PCB. Væggen udgøres af hele strukturen mellem den ydre overflade (”outer surface”) og den indre overflade (”inner surface”) som afgrænset af EMI-skjoldet. Via’en ligger midt i det hele til venstre for billedets midte. Figur 5 og 6 i samme erklæring viser et mikrofoto af samme tværsnit af VPU’en. Billedet viser øverste og nederste PCB, og mellem disse ses en større væg-PCB, som er orangebrun. Her ses det tilsvarende, at via’erne er placeret inden i dette orangebrune materiale. Via’erne er de hvide, skinnende metaliske strukturer. I midten af figurerne ses en del af bagkammeret. I figur 6 kan MEMS-mikrofonen og forstærkeren ses i bagkammeret. Det fremgår klart af billederne, at via’erne er boret ind i huller i væggen. Han opfatter professor Vidne 1s seneste erklæring af
  48. september 2023 således, at professor Vidne 1 her anerkender, at den dæmpende virkning er kompleks og ikke kan kontrolleres alene ved de akustiske åbninger. Professor Vidne 1 hævder dog fortsat, at det er åbningerne, der definerer dæmpningen af den mekaniske resonans. Det er imidlertid hans egen erfaring, at både mellem-rum, åbninger og volumen bidrager til dæmpningen. Det er ikke muligt eller i hvert fald meget vanskeligt at forudsige, om de akustiske åbninger har en mærkbar virkning på dæmpningen. Det er efter hans opfattelse heller ikke muligt at udtale sig om, hvorvidt åbningerne bidrager til dæmpningen. Bereg-ningerne herfor er ikke nærmere beskrevet i patent EP
  49. I patentet kombi-neres åbninger, mellemrum og volumen og behandles som ét samlet dæmp-ningsparameter. Når det i patentet anføres, at dæmpningen mindskes, jo større åbningerne er, er det efter hans opfattelse en ufuldstændig beskrivelse. Åbning-erne har betydning for frekvensen, men ikke nødvendigvis for dæmpningen. Der er behov for en simulering med forskellige dimensioner og luftmængder, før der kan siges noget herom. Det er korrekt, at ordlyden af afsnit [0013] og [0027] i beskrivelsen i den kine-siske brugsmodelansøgning CN 417 omtaler ”through holes provided on the side walls” og ikke ”in the side walls” , men tegningerne viser klart, at via’erne er placeret inden i væggen. I afsnit [0029] i den anden kinesiske brugsmodelansøgning CN 751 anvendes også udtrykket ”through-hole” (gennemgående hul). Det er rigtigt, at der i 51 beskrivelsen ikke er anført noget om, at en elektrisk forbindelse løber gennem ”through-hole” . Han studser ikke over formuleringen “as long as the rear acoustic cavity on both sides of the electric connector can be connected” , da enhver form for leder indeholder luft. De konkrete tværsnit af VPU’en, som er omtalt og afbilledet i hans erklæring af
  50. december 2022, har han modtaget fra GoerTek, som har udarbejdet tvær-snittene efter hans anvisninger og i overensstemmelse med den procedure, der er beskrevet på side 2 i erklæringen. Han har ikke selv udarbejdet nogen tvær-snit af VPU’en, men han har taget de mikrofotografier af tværsnittene, der ses i figur 5 og
  51. Han har ikke taget billedet i figur 4, som stammer fra en tidligere sag. Han har ikke set det konkrete tværsnit, som er afbilledet i figur
  52. Når han i sin erklæring af
  53. september 2023, pkt. 3, henviser til afsnit [0039] i Suvanto-ansøgningen, vedrører dette ikke figur 8 i Suvanto. Han fremhæver derimod de fordele ved de forskellige udførelsesmåder, der nævnes i Suvanto. European Patent Attorney Vidne 5 har vedstået sin erklæring af
  54. september 2023 og har supplerende forklaret blandt andet, at han i afsnit 13 i erklæringen, har beskrevet, hvor i beskrivelsen der efter hans opfattelse skal findes basis for træk 1.4 (”the pressure generating arrangement is secured to the MEMS microphone”) i patentansøgning EP 621 som oprindeligt udstedt. Han undrer sig over, at Opposition Division i sin afgørelse af
  55. maj 2023 kun hen-ter basis for træk 1.4 i de afsnit i beskrivelsen, der vedrørende konkrete udførel-sesformer, som er vist i figur 9-
  56. Dette er i direkte modstrid med etableret EPO-praksis (”the Gold Standard”). Han har allerede i sin første erklæring af
  57. december 2021 beskrevet, hvorledes patentansøgningen grundigt og pæda-gogisk fører læseren gennem de principper, der ligger til grund for opfindelsen, herunder hvilke dele der må anses for væsentlige. Opposition Division tager tilsyneladende ikke højde for den generelle del af beskrivelsen i patent-ansøgningen og de øvrige figurer i vurderingen af, om der foreligger mellem-liggende generaliseringer. At både Examining Division og Patent- og Varemærkestyrelsen i forbindelse med ansøgningsprocessen for henholdsvis patentet EP 621 og brugsmodellerne DK 078 og DK 120 fandt, at der i kravsættet skulle indgå trækket ”and wherein one or more via's
(915)are provided in the back chamber
(914)” (som indgår i træk 1.2.4), er udtryk for en klarhedsvurdering i medfør af Den Europæiske Patentkonvention (”EPC”) artikel 84 og skyldes ikke en basisindsigelse efter artikel
  1. Dette fremgår af blandt andet Examining Divisions begrundelse, hvor det i afsnit 2 anføres ”claim 1 is not clear” . Han er enig i, at Sonion Nederland B.V. i sit svar af
  2. november 2020 til Examining Division anfører, at trækkene i det senere krav 2 ikke e

🔗 Til officiel kilde

AI-forklaring ud fra den officielle lovtekst. Vejledende, erstatter ikke juridisk rådgivning.