European Patent Office

Latest documents

Judgment Nº T 1724/22 European Patent Office Board of Appeal, 2025-01-23
I. The appellant (opponent) appealed the opposition division's decision on the maintenance of European patent No. 3 393 594 in amended form.II. The patent proprietor (respondent) informed the board by letter dated 21 January 2025 that it no longer approved the text allowed by the opposition division. Neither did it approve the maintenance of the patent with the claims in the auxiliary requests.
Judgment Nº T 1975/22 European Patent Office Board of Appeal, 2025-01-21
I. Two oppositions were filed against European patent 2 640 371 ("patent") under Article 100(a) EPC in conjunction with Articles 54 and 56 EPC and under Article 100(b) EPC.II. The opposition division decided that the patent as amended according to the main request, the claims of which had been filed on 2 March 2021, and the invention to which it relates, met the requirements of the EPC.III. Opponent 2 ("appellant") filed an appeal against this decision. The appellant requested that the decision under appeal be set aside and the patent be revoked, and furthermore oral proceedings on an auxiliary basis.IV. The patent proprietor ("respondent") requested as its main request that the appeal be dismissed, alternatively that the patent be maintained on the basis of one of auxiliary requests 1 to 7 filed on 4 May 2022 before the opposition division. The respondent also requested oral proceedings on an auxiliary basis.V. Opponent 1, party as of right to the appeal proceedings, has not made any substantive submissions in the appeal proceedings.VI. The Board issued a summons to oral proceedings and a subsequent communication pursuant to Article 15(1) RPBA.VII. Oral proceedings were held on 21 January 2025 in the presence of the appellant and the respondent. During the oral proceedings, the respondent withdrew its consent and agreement under Article 113(2) EPC to the text of the patent as granted, withdrew all requests on file, and indicated that it would not be filing a replacement text. At the end of the oral proceedings, the Chair announced the Board's decision.
Judgment Nº T 1833/23 European Patent Office Board of Appeal, 2025-01-21
I. The applicant appealed against the decision of the examining division refusing European patent application No. 16187146.2 on the basis of Article 97(2) EPC because the requirements of Article 123(2) EPC were not fulfilled.II. The applicant requested "that the decision be set aside and that the patent be granted in accordance with the main request or, in the alternative, one of the first to fifth auxiliary requests in the series of numbering of the auxiliary requests, or, in the alternative, that the application be remitted to the Patent Division for further decision" (statement of grounds of appeal, page 8). The main request and the first to fourth auxiliary request are those underlying the appealed decision, respectively. The fifth auxiliary request has been filed for the first time with the statement of grounds of appeal.The applicant did not request oral proceedings before the board of appeal in the notice of appeal, the statement of grounds of appeal or any other communication.III. Claim 1 of the main request reads as follows:"A contact lens product (100), comprising:a multifocal contact lens (210) for preventing myopia or controlling a progression of myopia, comprising:a central region (211); andat least one annular region (212, 213, 314) concentrically surrounding the central region (211), wherein a diopter of each of the annular regions (212, 213, 314) is different from a diopter of the central region (211); anda buffer solution (120) comprising a cycloplegic agent, wherein the multifocal contact lens (210) is immersed in the buffer solution (120);wherein the multifocal contact lens (210) is made of silicone hydrogel or hydrogel, the one of the annular regions (212, 213, 314) closest to a periphery of the multifocal contact lens (210) defining a first annular region (212), the diopter of the central region (211) of the multifocal contact lens (210) is PowC, a maximum diopter of the first annular region (212) of the multifocal contact lens (210) is PowP1, wherein the maximum diopter of the first annular region (212) of the multifocal contact lens (210) is greater than the diopter of the central region (211) of the multifocal contact lens (210), wherein a diameter of the central region (211) of the multifocal contact lens (210) is DiC, an outer diameter of the first annular region (212) of the multifocal contact lens (210) is DiP1, a weight percentage concentration of the cycloplegic agent in the buffer solution (120) is ConA, and the following conditions are satisfied:FORMULA/TABLE/GRAPHIC
Judgment Nº T 0371/23 European Patent Office Board of Appeal, 2025-01-20
I. The opponent (appellant) filed an appeal against the opposition division's interlocutory decision maintaining the opposed patent in amended form according to an "auxiliary request 1".II. In the present decision, reference is made to the following prior-art document:D1: US 2014/0139551 A1.III. Since the proprietor (respondent) withdrew its request for oral proceedings in response to the board's preliminary opinion issued under Article 15(1) RPBA, the board decided in written proceedings (cf. Article 12(8) RPBA).IV. The parties' requests are as follows:- The opponent requests that the decision under appeal bet set aside and that the patent be revoked.- The proprietor requests that the appeal be dismissed, i.e. that the patent be maintained in amended form as found allowable by the opposition division (auxiliary request 1), or, in the alternative, that the patent be maintained on the basis of the claims of one of auxiliary requests 2 to 7, filed with its written reply to the statement of grounds of appeal.V. Claim 1 of auxiliary request 1 reads as follows:"A head mounted display system comprising:an image capture device (452) configured to capture eye images of an eye;a display (208) configured to display virtual images to the eye (302, 304, 410) of a wearer (204) of the head mounted display (200, 400, 710); anda hardware processor (224, 228, 450) programmed to:obtain the eye images of the wearer captured by the image capture device;determine biometric information of the wearer based at least in part on the eye images, wherein the biometric information is associated with physiological or behavioral characteristics of the wearer;display a user interface comprising a popup (824) including a consent request that includes a plurality of consent categories for the biometric information, wherein the plurality of consent categories includes a first consent category and a second consent category, and wherein the popup includes interactive buttons that are configured to receive input from the wearer indicating consent to share at least a portion of the biometric information;receive a response to the consent request, wherein the response includes a consent indication from the wearer;in response to a determination that the consent indication indicates that the wearer has not agreed to the first consent category, suppress transmission of biometric information that is associated with the first consent category, and;in response to a determination that the consent indication indicates that the wearer has agreed to the second consent category, transmit, to an acquirer device, the biometric information that is associated with the second consent category."Claim 1 of auxiliary request 2 differs from claim 1 of auxiliary request 1 as follows (with the deletions [deleted: struck through]):"[...]determine biometric information of the wearer based at least in part on the eye images, wherein the biometric information is associated with physiological [deleted: or behavioral] characteristics of the wearer; [...]".Claim 1 of auxiliary request 3 differs from claim 1 of auxiliary request 2 as follows (with the additions underlined and the deletions [deleted: struck through]):"A head mounted display system comprising:a[deleted: n] first image capture device (452) configured to capture eye images of an eye;a second image capture device configured to capture a plurality of outside world images;a display (208) configured to display virtual images to the eye (302, 304, 410) of a wearer (204) of the head mounted display (200,400, 710); anda hardware processor (224,228,450) programmed to:obtain the eye images of the wearer captured by the first image capture device;[...]display, on the display (208), a user interface comprising a popup (824) including a consent request for biometric information from a biometric information acquirer computing device, the consent request including [deleted: that includes] a plurality of consent categories for the biometric information, wherein the plurality of consent categories includes a first consent category and a second consent category, and wherein the popup includes interactive buttons that are configured to receive input from the wearer indicating consent to share at least a portion of the biometric information;[...]in response to a determination that the consent indication indicates that the wearer has agreed to the second consent category, transmit, to [deleted: an] the acquirer computing device, the biometric information that is associated with the second consent category."Claim 1 of auxiliary request 4 differs from claim 1 of auxiliary request 3 as follows (with the additions underlined and the deletions [deleted: struck through]):"[...]in response to a determination that the consent indication indicates that the wearer has not agreed to the first consent category, [deleted: suppress transmission of] not transmit biometric information that is associated with the first consent category, and; [...]".Claim 1 of auxiliary request 5 differs from claim 1 of auxiliary request 3 as follows (with the additions underlined):"[...]in response to a determination that the consent indication indicates that the wearer has not agreed to the first consent category, not transmit biometric information that is associated with the first consent category, and if a transmission of biometric information exists due to a prior consent of the wearer, suppress transmission of transmit biometric information that is associated with the first consent category, and; [...]".Claim 1 of auxiliary request 6 differs from claim 1 of auxiliary request 5 as follows (with the additions underlined and the deletions [deleted: struck through]):"A system (700) comprising a plurality of [deleted: A] head mounted display systems (710), a plurality of biometric information acquirer computing devices (715) and a biometric information exchange system (705) for exchanging information between wearable display systems (710) and biometric information acquirer computing devices (715) through a network (720), each head mounted display system (710) comprising: [...]".Claim 1 of auxiliary request 7 differs from claim 1 of auxiliary request 6 as follows (with the additions underlined and the deletions [deleted: struck through]):"[...]in response to a determination that the consent indication indicates that the wearer has agreed to the second consent category, transmit, to the acquirer computing device, the biometric information that is associated with the second consent category,wherein the biometric information corresponds to at least one of eye patterns, eye movements, eye fixations, or eye browsing history."
Judgment Nº T 0869/24 European Patent Office Board of Appeal, 2025-01-20
I. The appeal is directed against the decision of the examining division, dated 19 January 2024, refusing European patent application No. 18728843.6.II. The appellant filed a notice of appeal on 19 March 2024 and paid the appeal fee on the same day.III. By communication of 4 July 2024, received by the appellant, the Registry of the Board informed the appellant that it appeared from the file that the written statement of grounds of appeal had not been filed, and that it was therefore to be expected that the appeal would be rejected as inadmissible pursuant to Article 108, third sentence, EPC in conjunction with Rule 101(1) EPC. The appellant was informed that any observations had to be filed within two months of notification of the communication.In the same communication, the Board stated that it assumed, unless contradicted by the appellant in the specified period, that the appellant's request for oral proceedings did not apply to the issue of inadmissibility of the appeal because no grounds of appeal had been filed in due time.IV. No reply was received.
Urteil Nr T 0123/24 Beschwerdekammer des Europäischen Patentamts, 2025-01-20
I. Die Einsprechende (Beschwerdeführerin) hat gegen die Entscheidung der Einspruchsabteilung, den Einspruch zurückzuweisen, Beschwerde eingelegt. Sie beantragt, die Entscheidung der Einspruchsabteilung aufzuheben und das Patent im gesamten Umfang zu widerrufen.II. Die Patentinhaberin (Beschwerdegegnerin) beantragte in ihrer Beschwerdeerwiderung,1. die Beschwerde zurückzuweisen und damit das Patent wie erteilt aufrechtzuerhalten,2. hilfsweise eine mündliche Verhandlung anzuberaumen,3. weiter hilfsweise, das Patent in beschränkter Fassung gemäß einem der Hilfsanträge 1 bis 4, im erstinstanzlichen Verfahren eingereicht mit Schriftsatz vom 21. September 2023 und erneut eingereicht mit der Beschwerdeerwiderung, aufrechtzuerhalten.III. Mit der Ladung zur mündlichen Verhandlung hat die Kammer den Beteiligten in einer Mitteilung gemäß Artikel 15 (1) VOBK ihre vorläufige Meinung mitgeteilt.IV. Mit Schreiben vom 2. Dezember 2024 hat die Patentinhaberin ihre Anträge geändert.V. In einer Mitteilung vom 17. Januar 2025 teilte die Geschäftsstellenbeamtin der Kammer den Beteiligten mit, dass der für den 19. Februar 2025 anberaumte Termin zur mündlichen Verhandlung aufgehoben worden sei und über die Beschwerde im schriftlichen Verfahren entschieden werde.VI. Die Schlussanträge der Beteiligten lauten wie folgt:Die Einsprechende beantragt, die Entscheidung der Einspruchsabteilung aufzuheben und das Patent im gesamten Umfang zu widerrufen.Die Patentinhaberin beantragt die Beschwerde zurückzuweisen. Hilfsweise beantragt sie sie Sache zur Diskussion der Hilfsanträge 1 bis 4 an die Einspruchsabteilung zurückzuverweisen. Die Durchführung einer mündlichen Verhandlung beantragt sie nachrangig zum Antrag der Zurückverweisung an die Einspruchsabteilung zur Diskussion der Hilfsanträge 1 bis 4.VII. In dieser Entscheidung wird auf die folgenden Dokumente Bezug genommen:D1 |JP 9-308019 A |D1a|Maschinelle Übersetzung des Dokuments D1|D2 |WO 2013/059934 A1 |D3 |S. Dutta et al: "Measurement of weight using magnetic levitation", Proceedings of International Conference on Circuits, Communication, Control and Computing, 21.-22. November 2014, Seiten 45-49|D4 |DE 693 13 950 T2 |D5 |DE 10 2004 002 920 A1 |Mit der Beschwerdebegründung legte die Einsprechende die folgenden Dokumente vor:D7|WO 2015/033108 A1|D8|EP 2 201 340 B1 |D9|JL Everaert et. al.: "PLASMA DOPING CONTROL BY MASS METROLOGY", Conference Paper, November 2008, DOI: 10.1109/RTP.2008.4690544, Source: IEEE Xplore, pages 1 to 4 |VIII. In dieser Entscheidung wird die folgende Merkmalsgliederung verwendet. Danach lautet Anspruch 1 des erteilten Patents wie folgt:M 1 |Verfahren zum Transportieren eines Gutes (50)mittels eines mehrdimensionalen Antriebs (100), welcher ausgebildet ist mit: |M 1.1|- einem Stator (120) mit einer erstenMagneteinrichtung (121) zum Erzeugen eines ersten Magnetfeldes und |M 1.2|- einem Beweger (110), welcher eine zweiteMagneteinrichtung (111) zur Erzeugung eines zweiten Magnetfeldes zur magnetischen Wechselwirkung mit dem vom Stator (120) erzeugbaren ersten Magnetfeld aufweist||und welcher einen Träger (10) und/oder einen Behälter (11) für ein zu transportierendes Gut (50) aufweist oder bildet, |M 1.3|und bei welchem durch die magnetischeWechselwirkung der Beweger (110) relativ zum Stator (120) berührungsfrei und steuerbar bewegbar ist, |M 1.4|wobei durch die magnetische Wechselwirkung einegesteuerte Bewegung des Bewegers (110) in einer xy-Ebene mit steuerbarem Abstand zu einer Referenzfläche (122) ermöglicht wird,|| wobei bei dem Verfahren: |M 2 |- der Träger (10) zur Aufnahme und zum Tragendes Gutes (50) verwendet wird, |M 3 |- mindestens eine für einen Bewegungszustand desTrägers (10) repräsentative Größe und dadurch der Bewegungszustand des Trägers (10) mit und ohne Gut (50) erfasst wird,|M 4 |- vor, während und/oder nach einemTransportvorgang des Trägers (10) |M 4.1|(a) aus einer für eine Änderung des Bewegungszustandes des Trägers (10) repräsentativen Größe und/oder(b) aus einer für ein Mittel zum Erreichen und/oder zum Erhalten eines Bewegungszustandes des Trägers (10) mit und ohne Gut (50) repräsentativen Größe|M 4.2|die Masse des Gutes (50) bestimmt wird. |
Judgment Nº T 1208/23 European Patent Office Board of Appeal, 2025-01-17
I. The patent proprietor (appellant) filed an appeal against the decision of the opposition division to revoke European patent No 3 370 770.II. The board appointed oral proceedings.III. In a letter dated 30 December 2024, the appellant stated that it no longer approved the text of the patent as granted, that it withdrew all auxiliary requests on file, and that it would not be filing any replacement text.IV. The oral proceedings, appointed for 6 May 2025, were cancelled.
Judgment Nº T 1411/22 European Patent Office Board of Appeal, 2025-01-17
I. The appeal was filed by the patent proprietor against the decision of the opposition division to revoke the European patent EP 3 073 221.II. The opposition division held that the patent did not disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art. This applied to any of the requests on file.III. Oral proceedings were held before the Board.(a) The appellant (patent proprietor) requested that the decision under appeal be set aside and the case be remitted to the opposition division for further examination with regard to novelty and inventive step. Further, they requested that the patent be maintained on the basis of the main request or of one of the auxiliary requests filed with the statement of grounds of appeal.(b) The respondent (opponent) requested that the appeal be dismissed.IV. Independent claim 1 of the main request reads as follows:"A method for evaluating the level of threat of at least one entity (SE) among a plurality of entities in a battlefield environment, the level of threat being evaluated with respect to a reference entity (RE) to be protected, the method being carried out by a system for evaluating comprising a calculator (204) and an obtaining unit (202), the method comprising the steps of:- segmenting the battlefield environment into a plurality of layers (L1, L2, L3, L4, L5), the step of segmenting being carried out by the calculator (204),- obtaining data representative of a position of said entity (SE) with respect to the layers (L1, L2, L3, L4, L5) of the battlefield environment, the step for obtaining being carried out by the obtaining unit (202), and- determining the level of threat of said entity (SE) using the obtained data, the step of determining being carried out by the calculator (204),the method further comprising a step of associating at least one geographical parameter with each layer (L1, L2, L3, L4, L5), said parameter(s) comprising the distance range delimiting the layer (L1, L2, L3, L4, L5), said distance range being associated with a begin range and an end range, the distance range associated with each layer (L1, L2, L3, L4, L5) being dynamically defined for each entity of the plurality of entities depending on predefined criteria, the step of associating being carried out by the system."Dependent claim 5 of the main request reads as follows:"The method for evaluating according to any one of claims 1 to 4, wherein at the obtaining step, data representative of the urgency of the potential threat represented by said entity (SE) and/or data representative of the capability to engage and deter or kill the potential threat represented by said entity (SE) are also obtained."Independent claim 13 of the main request reads as follows:"A system for evaluating the level of threat of at least one entity (SE) among a plurality of entities in a battlefield environment, the level of threat being evaluated with respect to a reference entity (RE) to be protected, the system comprising:- a calculator (204) adapted to segment the battlefield environment into a plurality of layers (L1, L2, L3, L4, L5), and- an obtaining unit (202) adapted to obtain data representative of a position of said entity (SE) with respect to the layers (L1, L2, L3, L4, L5) of the battlefield environment,the calculator (204) being further adapted to determine the level of threat of said entity (SE) using the obtained data and the system being further adapted to associate at least one geographical parameter with each layer (L1, L2, L3, L4, L5), said parameter(s) comprising the distance range delimiting the layer (L1, L2, L3, L4, L5), said distance range being associated with a begin range and an end range, the distance range associated with each layer (L1, L2, L3, L4, L5) being dynamically defined for each entity of the plurality of entities depending on predefined criteria."V. The appellant's arguments can be summarized as follows:The invention was disclosed in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for a skilled person to carry it out.(a) The patent discloses in paragraph [0049] suitable criteria to define a distance range associated with each layer and how to determine whether the criteria is actually met as required by claim 1.(b) The skilled person further knows how to adapt such a distance range dynamically from figure 1.(c) The skilled person understands that the terms "begin range" and "end range" correspond to the borders of the respective layer as shown in figure 3 and described in [0038].(d) The skilled person knows from their expert knowledge how to determine an entity's capability to engage and deter or kill as required by claim 5.VI. The respondent's arguments can be summarized as follows:The skilled person does not receive sufficient information on how to put the inventions defined in claims 1 and 5 into practice.(a) The patent in suit does not explain how a distance range can be dynamically defined depending on predefined criteria as required by claim 1.(b) The terms "begin range" and "end range" used in claim 1 are not understandable.(c) The skilled person is not able to determine the reference entity's "capability to engage and deter or kill" referred to in claim 5 either based on the information provided by the patent in suit.
Judgment Nº T 1078/22 European Patent Office Board of Appeal, 2025-01-16
I. The patent proprietor appealed the decision of the opposition division to revoke European patentNr. 3 224 411 on the grounds that inter alia the set of claims of auxiliary request 4 filed during oral proceedings contravened Articles 84 and 123(2) EPC.II. With the grounds of appeal the appellant inter alia filed two sets of amended claims labelled main request (identical to auxiliary request 4 mentioned above) and auxiliary request 1.III. Claim 1 of the main request (hereinafter claim 1) reads as follows (amendments in comparison to claim 1 as granted made apparent):"1. A fiber sheet, characterized in that the fiber sheet it is obtainable by foam based production technology,- it comprises 50-99 wt% of natural fibers having average fiber length of 0.5-5mm and 1-50 wt% of reinforcement fibers having average fiber length of 5-30 mm,- it comprises fibers having average fiber length of 0.5-100 mm,- a binder selected from a group consisting of polyvinyl alcohols, polyvinyl acetate dispersions, ethyl vinyl alcohol dispersions, polyurethane dispersions, acrylic latexes, styrene butadiene dispersions, binders based on finely divided cellulose, binders based on cellulose derivatives, biopolymers, and combinations thereof,- foaming agent,- 50-99 wt% of said fibers are natural fibers and 1-50 wt% of said fibers are reinforcement fibers selected from polymer fibers, mineral fibers, non-wood natural fibers and glass-fibers and combinations thereof, andsaid fiber sheet has stretch in the range of 3-50%."Claim 1 of auxiliary request 1 reads as follows (amendments vis- -vis claim 1 made apparent):"1. A fiber sheet, characterized in that the fiber sheet it is obtainable by foam based production technology,- it comprises 50-99 wt% of natural fibers having average fiber length of 0.5-5mm and 1-50 wt% of reinforcement fibers having average fiber length of 5 - 30 mm,- it comprises fibers having average fiber length of 0.5-100 mm, and where 50-99 wt% of said fibers are natural fibers and 1-50 wt% of said fibers are reinforcement fibers selected from polymer fibers, mineral fibers, non-wood natural fibers and glass-fibers and combinations thereof,- a binder selected from a group consisting of polyvinyl alcohols, polyvinyl acetate dispersions, ethyl vinyl alcohol dispersions, polyurethane dispersions, acrylic latexes, styrene butadiene dispersions, binders based on finely divided cellulose, binders based on cellulose derivatives, biopolymers, and combinations thereof,- foaming agent,[deleted: 50-99 wt%][deleted: ][deleted: of said fibers are natural fibers and 1-50 wt% of said fibers are reinforcement fibers][deleted: ][deleted: selected from polymer fibers, mineral fibers, non-wood natural fibers and glass-fibers][deleted: ][deleted: and combinations thereof,] and- said fiber sheet has stretch in the range of 3-50%."IV. In reply to the appeal, the opponent (hereinafter respondent) rebutted the appellant's submissions and objected to the admittance of auxiliary request 1.V. The appellant requested in writing that the decision under appeal be set aside and that the patent be maintained in amended form on the basis of the claims of the main request or, alternatively, of auxiliary request 1, both as filed with the grounds of appeal.The respondent requested in writing that the appeal be dismissed.VI. After having received the board's preliminary opinion, the appellant announced that they will not attend the oral proceedings. The board then informed the parties that the already scheduled oral proceedings were cancelled.
Judgment Nº T 0582/23 European Patent Office Board of Appeal, 2025-01-15
I. The appeal is directed against the examining division's decision to refuse the present application. The examining division found that claim 1 of the main request was not allowable under Article 56 EPC and that claim 1 of each of auxiliary request 1, 1A, 2 and 3 did not comply with Article 123(2) EPC.In addition, auxiliary request 4 was found to be allowable; however, it did not have the appellant's consent to proceed towards grant of a patent (cf. Article 113(2) EPC).II. The prior-art documents referred to by the examining division included:D1: WO 2014/182010 A1D2: US 2014/099969 A1D7: "Protocol specification", 3GPP TS 25.331V12.1.0, XP050769964.III. In response to the board's (negative) preliminary opinion issued under Article 15(1) RPBA, the appellant indicated that it would not be attending the oral proceedings. No further submissions were made regarding the substance.IV. The scheduled oral proceedings were then cancelled.V. The appellant requests that the decision of the examining division be set aside and that a patent be granted on the basis of the claims of the main request or one of the auxiliary requests 1, 1A, 2, 3 and 4, copies of all requests submitted with the statement setting out the grounds of appeal. The claims of all requests are identical to those of the correspondingly numbered requests underlying the decision under appeal.Furthermore, the appellant requested that, should the board be of the opinion that the subject matter of auxiliary requests 1 to 3 had not been considered by the examining division with regard to patentability, and therefore would not be in a position to determine whether a patent should be granted on the basis of one of these requests, the matter should be referred back to the examining division for further prosecution.VI. Claim 1 of the main request reads as follows (board's labelling):"A method performed by a user equipment, UE, device to access a mobile communications network, the method comprising:(a) receiving control information from one or more base stations, the control information including one or more configuration parameters for controlling initial access between a plurality of access systems; and(b) performing an initial access attempt to a first access system in accordance with the received control information,characterized in that(c) in response to the initial access attempt, the UE device receives a radio resource control, RRC, message, the RRC message being one of an RRC connection reject message and an RRC connection resume message, from the first access system, said RRC message informing the UE device to perform a second access attempt to an indicated second access system, and(d) the UE device performs said second access attempt."Claim 1 of auxiliary request 1 differs from claim 1 of the main request in that feature (c) is amended as follows (board's markup, differing from the appellant's markup; deletions not indicated):(c1) "either in response to the initial access attempt, the UE device receives a radio resource control, RRC, message, the RRC message being an RRC connection reject message, from the first access system, said RRC message informing the UE device to perform a second access attempt to an indicated second access system, the second access system being indicated by the RRC message including a predefined value corresponding to an entry in the control information identifying the second access system,or in response to the initial access attempt, the UE device receives a random access response, RAR, message, the RAR message from the first access system, said RAR message informing the UE device to perform a second access attempt to an indicated second access system, the second access system being indicated by the RAR message including a predefined value corresponding to an entry in the control information identifying the second access system."Claim 1 of auxiliary request 1A differs from claim 1 of auxiliary request 1 in that both occurrences of the formulation "including a predefined value" are replaced by the phrase "including a particular parameter set to a predefined value". Thus, feature (c1) is amended as follows (appellant's markup):(c1a) "either in response to the initial access attempt, the UE device receives an RRC message, the RRC message being an RRC connection reject message, from the first access system, said RRC message informing the UE device to perform a second access attempt to an indicated second access system, the second access system being indicated by the RRC message including a particular parameter set to a predefined value corresponding to an entry in the control information identifying the second access system,or in response to the initial access attempt, the UE device receives an RAR message, the RAR message from the first access system, said RAR message informing the UE device to perform a second access attempt to an indicated second access system, the second access system being indicated by the RAR message including a particular parameter set to a predefined value corresponding to an entry in the control information identifying the second access system."Claim 1 of auxiliary request 2 differs from claim 1 of the main request in that feature (c) is amended as follows (appellant's markup; deletions not indicated):(c2) "in response to the initial access attempt, the UE device receives a radio resource control, RRC, message, the RRC message being an RRC connection reject message, from the first access system, said RRC message informing the UE device to perform a second access attempt to an indicated second access system, the second access system being indicated by the RRC message including a predefined value corresponding to an entry in the control information identifying the second access system."Claim 1 of auxiliary request 3 differs from claim 1 of auxiliary request 2 in that feature (c2) is amended as follows (appellant's markup):(c3) "in response to the initial access attempt, the UE device receives a radio resource control, RRC, message, the RRC message being an RRC connection reject message, from the first access system, said RRC message informing the UE device to perform a second access attempt to an indicated second access system, the second access system being indicated by the RRC message including as a backoff indicator a predefined value corresponding to an entry in the control information identifying the second access system."Claim 1 of auxiliary request 4 differs from claim 1 of auxiliary request 1 in that feature (c1) is amended as follows (board's markup; deletions not indicated):(c4) "either in response to the initial access attempt, the UE device receives a radio resource control, RRC, message, the RRC message being an RRC connection reject message, from the first access system, said RRC message having a waitTime or extendedWaitTime parameter set to a predefined value to indicate to the UE device to perform a second access attempt to a second access system,or in response to the initial access attempt, the UE device receives a random access response, RAR, message, the RAR message from the first access system, said RAR message having a back-off indicator set to index 15 to indicate to the UE device to perform a second access attempt to a second access system, wherein the control information includes an indication of a type of the second access system when the back-off indicator is set to index 15."