An automatic pickup system comprising a robot (6) having an articulated arm (7) with a gripping member (8) for gripping an object (4), said articulated arm (7) being controlled by a control section (3) characterized by the fact that said gripping member (8) presents a camera (11) for generating a detected image of at least one portion of said object, said detected image consisting of a number of dots and by the fact that said control section (3) comprises processing means (20) for receiving said detected image and for determining the coordinates of predetermined points of the same.' The independent claims 1 and 12 of the main request submitted on 20 February 2001 under consideration read as follows: (b) The respondent/patentee requested that the appeal be dismissed or alternatively that the decision under appeal be set aside and the patent be maintained in amended form on the basis of either auxiliary requests 1 or 2 (claims 1 to 22 of the first or claims 1 to 22 of the second auxiliary request as filed with the letter of 19 December 2003) or on the basis of a third auxiliary request (claims 1 to 4) as submitted during the oral proceedings before the Board. (a) The appellant/opponent requested that the decision under appeal be set aside and the patent be revoked in its entirety.

Oral proceedings were held on 22 January 2004. 6, December 1987Д®nclosure E7 = 'Richtlinien zur Erstellung von Betriebsanleitungen', Siemens, March 1986Д®nclosure E8 = Siemens Katalog 'Bildtechnik MP 18', 1986, pages 4/8 and 4/9 Ruocco 'Derivation of a computer model for the front end of a robot 3-dimensional vision sensor', IEE Proceedings, Vol. The most relevant documents of the prior art submitted are considered to be:Д2 = Notarised copy of 'Optische Sensorsysteme Videomat and Optomat fГјr industriellen Einsatz', order No.

The subject-matter of the independent claims 1 and 12 was considered to be novel and inventive with respect to the remaining prior art documents submitted. were considered to be admissible with respect to Article 123(2) and (3) EPC. Furthermore, the subject-matter claimed was considered to be sufficiently disclosed. The Opposition Division held that it had not been proven that document D2 formed part of the prior art and thus could not be considered. The opposition had been filed against the patent as a whole and was based on Article 100(a) EPC (lack of novelty and lack of inventive step) and Article 100(b) EPC (that the patent does not disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art). the claims 1 to 22 and the amended description pages 2 and 4 as submitted during the oral proceedings held on 20. 0 551 854 in amended form on the basis of the main request, i.e.

The opponent lodged an appeal against the interlocutory decision of the Opposition Division to maintain European patent No. Request at oral proceedings to file a third auxiliary request (not allowed) Inventive step (main and second auxiliary request, no)ДЄdded subject-matter (first auxiliary request, yes) Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the RegisterД«ibliographic information is available in:Д®uropean Patent Convention 1973 Art 123(2)

22.1 disclosure form pdf