T 0283/14 - Unclarity must be lived with (G3/14, r.55)

 Key points

• This is an older decision from 2018, but this post allows me to recall the holding of G 3/14, r.55 that “A granted claim may turn out not to comply with Article 84 EPC but such non-compliance must be lived with. However, any lack of clarity of the claims may still be highly relevant in opposition proceedings in that it can influence the decisions on issues under Article 100 EPC: [] For example the lack of clarity of a claim may have a profound effect on the outcome of the grounds for opposition according to (i) Article 100(b) / sufficiency [], (ii) Article 100(a) EPC / novelty [], or Article 100(a) EPC / inventive step []. ” (internal citations omitted)

T 0283/14 - 

https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t140283eu1.html

“It is correct that the term "low" is relative and does not allow a clear demarcation with the state of the art. However, as pointed out in G3/14, OJ 2015, A102, Reasons 55, this must be lived with. This term does however have a meaning for the skilled person, as shown by the Annexes 2, 4 and 8.”