T 0565/11 - Not saved by the drawings

Key points

• An inconsistency in the claim (and description) can not be taken away by including a reference to a particular drawing.
• " Moreover the reference to the drawing is not allowable because it is not absolutely essential. The intention of the reference is not to define a shape (as in T986/97) but rather to define parameters which could have been defined clearly with words when drafting the patent application."

Reasons for the Decision

1. Main request

1.1 Claim 1 as granted was amended during opposition proceedings to arrive at claim 1 of the present main request. The amendments that are relevant for this decision are:

"the configuration parameters including number of coils, leads (L1,L2,...) and coil radii (R1,R2,...) provided along a radial direction of each coil and set along the leads (L1,L2,...) of the target helical spring,"

"coil diameters (D1,D2,...) which are provided in a radial direction of each coil of the target helical spring and

set along the pitches (P1,P2,...) for the number of coils,"

The underlined wording was not present in the granted claims.
These amendments may therefore be examined for clarity according to the order of G3/14.

1.2 According to claim 1 the radii and the diameters are each provided along, or in, a radial direction of each coil. However in Fig. 6 it may be seen that the radii are measured perpendicularly to the axis and the diameters are measured along the coil itself i.e. not perpendicularly to the axis of the spring. Thus, in the claim, the same expression is used with two different meanings and is therefore ambiguous.

1.3 Furthermore the expression "along the leads" when defining the coil radii is unclear because the leads (and the pitches) are measured axially. The radii are however perpendicular to the axis and therefore there is a contradiction inherent in this expression. Fig. 6 may well illustrate how the radii and diameters are measured but does not provide any hint as to what is meant by "along the leads" because the radii are drawn perpendicular to the leads. Paragraphs [0027] and [0032] of the patent also do not explain what is meant by this expression. Therefore this contradiction, present in the claim, is not resolved even should the teaching of Fig. 6 or the description be taken into account.

1.4 The amendments to claim 1 are therefore not clear and consequently do not meet the requirements of Article 84 EPC.

2. First auxiliary request

[Claim 1 of the first auxiliary request is further restricted over the main request by the addition of "as shown at the left side drawing in Fig. 6" and by "as shown at the right side drawing in Fig. 6" after features A and B respectively to qualify the configuration and the dimensional parameters respectively.]

2.1 Claim 1 of this request is not clear because the feature of the radii being set along the leads is still present and the reference to Fig. 6 does not clarify the situation. This figure merely illustrates the fact that the feature is self-contradictory because the leads and radii are perpendicular.

The reference to the drawing introduces further ambiguities as it is not known to what extent the disclosure of the drawing restricts the scope of the claim, for example, it is not clear whether the method claimed is restricted to a spring having the same number of coils as shown in the drawing.

Claim 1 is therefore not clear in the sense of Article 84 EPC.

2.2 Moreover the reference to the drawing is not allowable because it is not absolutely essential. The intention of the reference is not to define a shape (as in T986/97) but rather to define parameters which could have been defined clearly with words when drafting the patent application. Thus the decision T986/97 deals with a different situation which is not comparable to that in the present case. Therefore, additionally, this request does not comply with Rule 43(6) EPC.