Using the same pair of terminals for presence detection and power supply supported inventive step in EPO appeal T 1718/23, concerning an electronic vapour device. The Board found no reason, without hindsight, to replace the prior art’s separate detection path with detection through the power line. Its decision of 16 July 2026, published online on 14 September, dismissed the appeals of the proprietor and opponent 1, leaving the patent maintained in amended form under auxiliary request 7A. The main request and auxiliary request 1 lacked novelty, while request 7 contained an impermissible intermediate generalisation.
The outcome does not make every reduction in components inventive. J&C recommends documenting the structural change, the functions retained and the resulting technical effect, then explaining why the prior art would not prompt that particular modification. Request management also mattered: requests 2 to 6 were not admitted after their order was changed on appeal, and requests 4A to 6A should have been filed at first instance. Proprietors should settle their fallback claims, ranking and disclosure support during opposition rather than assume that appeal will provide a fresh opportunity to reorganise them.
