G 3/14 : Clarity in opposition
In considering whether, for the purposes of Article 101(3) EPC, a patent as amended meets the requirements of the EPC, the claims of the patent may be examined for compliance with the requirements of Article 84 EPC only when, and then only to the extent that the amendment introduces non-compliance with Article 84 EPC. link
G 2/12 and G 2/13: Plant products
The exclusion of essentially biological processes for the production of plants in Article 53(b) EPC does not have a negative effect on the allowability of a product claim directed to plants or plant material. link
TBA Decisions with publication code [B]
T 1363/12 : G 2/10 remains the gold standard
The fundamental test under Article 123(2) EPC remains the "gold" standard referred to in G 2/10, namely, what would a skilled person directly and unambiguously derive, using common general knowledge, and seen objectively and relative to the date of filing, from the whole of the original disclosure.
The decision in T 2619/11 did not lay down a different test, namely, of what was "really disclosed" to the skilled person.
Decisions on Article 123(2) EPC are very case-specific and care should be taken in applying statements of Boards of Appeal made in the context of particular factual situations to other factual situations. link
T 2130/11 : Disclaiming not more than necessary
[T]he condition that the disclaimer should not remove more than is necessary to restore novelty should be applied while taking into consideration its purpose, namely that the "necessity for a disclaimer is not an opportunity for the applicant to reshape his claims arbitrarily" []. In this respect situations can be foreseen, in which, while fulfilment of the condition taken in a strictly literal way would not be possible, a definition of the disclaimed subject-matter which satisfies the requirements of Article 84 EPC and fulfils the purpose of the condition (i.e. to avoid an arbitrary reshaping of the claims) may be achievable. In other words, a disclaimer removing more than strictly necessary to restore novelty would not be in contradiction with the spirit of G 1/03, if it were required to satisfy Article 84 EPC and it did not lead to an arbitrary reshaping of the claims (see point 2.10). link
The decision in T 2619/11 did not lay down a different test, namely, of what was "really disclosed" to the skilled person.
Decisions on Article 123(2) EPC are very case-specific and care should be taken in applying statements of Boards of Appeal made in the context of particular factual situations to other factual situations. link
T 2130/11 : Disclaiming not more than necessary
[T]he condition that the disclaimer should not remove more than is necessary to restore novelty should be applied while taking into consideration its purpose, namely that the "necessity for a disclaimer is not an opportunity for the applicant to reshape his claims arbitrarily" []. In this respect situations can be foreseen, in which, while fulfilment of the condition taken in a strictly literal way would not be possible, a definition of the disclaimed subject-matter which satisfies the requirements of Article 84 EPC and fulfils the purpose of the condition (i.e. to avoid an arbitrary reshaping of the claims) may be achievable. In other words, a disclaimer removing more than strictly necessary to restore novelty would not be in contradiction with the spirit of G 1/03, if it were required to satisfy Article 84 EPC and it did not lead to an arbitrary reshaping of the claims (see point 2.10). link
T 2001/12 : Doubts about the technical effect: Article 83, 84 or 56 EPC ?An objection of insufficient disclosure under Article 83 EPC 1973 cannot legitimately be based on an argument that the application would not enable a skilled person to achieve a non-claimed technical effect (point 3.4).
A doubt that the invention as claimed is capable of solving the problem defined in the application may have the following consequences:
a) If the question arises because the claim fails to specify those features which are disclosed in the application as providing the solution to the problem, then the description and claims are inconsistent in relation to the definition of the invention, and an objection under Article 84 EPC 1973 may properly arise that the claims do not contain all the essential features necessary to specify the invention.
b) If this is not the case, but, having regard to the prior art, and irrespective of what may be asserted in the description, it does not appear credible that the invention as claimed would actually be capable of solving the problem, then an objection under Article 56 EPC 1973 may be raised (point 4.4). link
A doubt that the invention as claimed is capable of solving the problem defined in the application may have the following consequences:
a) If the question arises because the claim fails to specify those features which are disclosed in the application as providing the solution to the problem, then the description and claims are inconsistent in relation to the definition of the invention, and an objection under Article 84 EPC 1973 may properly arise that the claims do not contain all the essential features necessary to specify the invention.
b) If this is not the case, but, having regard to the prior art, and irrespective of what may be asserted in the description, it does not appear credible that the invention as claimed would actually be capable of solving the problem, then an objection under Article 56 EPC 1973 may be raised (point 4.4). link
T 1410/14 : Public prior use and features visible for a short time
Merkmale eines nur für einen kurzen Zeitraum sichtbaren Gegenstands sind nur dann der Öffentlichkeit zugänglich geworden, wenn zweifelsfrei nachgewiesen ist, dass für den Fachmann in diesem kurzen Zeitraum die Merkmale eindeutig und unmittelbar zu erkennen waren. link
T 0081/14 : Claim for use of a product obtainable by a process
When considering the definition of a product in terms of its production process the principles developed in the jurisprudence for the "product-by-process claims" are in general to be applied, also in the case of a claim directed to the use of that product. link
T 1360/11 : Restricting a claim for a composition comprising
Where a granted claim directed to a composition defined in an open manner and including the presence of a component belonging to a class or list of compounds in a quantity defined by a range is later amended by limiting the definition of the class or list of compounds, a possible infringement of the requirements of Article 123(3) EPC may be avoided by including in the amended claim a quantitative condition on the limited class or list of compounds and an additional constraint on the total amount of compounds belonging to the broader class or list (point 3.11). link
T 0236/12 : Back to the drawings as filed
The drawings of the patent as granted were replaced in opposition by the drawings of the application as filed (which showed less features). link
T 0037/12 : Handwritten amendments are allowed during oral proceedings in appeal.
Amendments can be submitted in handwritten form during oral proceedings. link
T 2068/14 : Video conference before the Boards
T 0037/12 : Handwritten amendments are allowed during oral proceedings in appeal.
Amendments can be submitted in handwritten form during oral proceedings. link
T 2068/14 : Video conference before the Boards
" the board is prepared, in principle, to consider in exceptional circumstances the holding of ex parte oral proceedings by video conference". link
No comments:
Post a Comment
Do not use hyperlinks in comment text or user name. Comments are welcome, even though they are strictly moderated (no politics). Moderation can take some time.