T 2316/12 - Grammatically problematic English

Key points

• The application was filed in English, being a translation from Chinese. The Board notes that, regarding the basis of certain features in some passages of the application as filed, that "these passages are written in such grammatically problematic English that a direct and unambiguous basis for the added feature cannot be found" .

T 2316/12 - link




Reasons for the Decision

5. Auxiliary request 3

5.1 Article 123(2) EPC

The subject-matter of claim 1 fails to meet the requirement of Article 123(2) EPC.

No direct and unambiguous disclosure is to be found in the application as filed of the feature added to claim 1 that the offset device and the drive motor are in a fixed eccentric position relative to the hub. As regards the basis for the amendment suggested by the appellant as being from page 5, line 31 to page 6, line 1 and on page 14, lines 11 to 15, both of these passages are written in such grammatically problematic English that a direct and unambiguous basis for the added feature cannot be found. In this respect the appellant argues that despite the lack of a literal textual basis a direct and unambiguous basis is nonetheless present in the figures. However, the figures each disclose a specific arrangement in which the feature taken up into claim 1 is disclosed in combination with further features. The omission at least of these further features from claim 1 thus results in the requirement of Article 123(2) EPC not being met.

5.3 It thus follows that the subject-matter of claim 1 extends beyond the content of the application as filed, contrary to the requirement of Article 123(2) EPC. Auxiliary request 3 is thus not allowable.