|
1. Delaying detailed substantiation of the ground of inventive
step raised in the notice of opposition to the last moment of
opposition proceedings should be avoided if possible since it
creates an unexpected situation for the other parties and the
opposition division.
2. However, in the special case where an inventive step argument
is based on the same document as the novelty argument, and the
novelty of the features in question cannot be answered with a
simple yes or no, but depends on how the document is interpreted
as a whole, it may be difficult if not impossible for an opponent
to argue lack of inventive step without a precise statement of
how the document is understood, and the features actually found
to be different by the opposition division.
3. In order to guarantee the right to be heard (Article 113(1)
EPC), there should in any case be an explicit step during oral
proceedings, recorded in the minutes, giving an opponent an
opportunity to comment on inventive step on the basis of the
opposition division's finding with respect to novelty before
deciding against the opponent.
(See points 13 to 15 of the reasons).
| 
