T 2253/12 - Sufficiency and CGK

Key points
" The Board notes that, in order to assess whether the patent discloses the claimed invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art, the common general knowledge of the skilled person is to be duly taken into account. There is no need for an exhaustive description of generally known technical details to be implemented according to the invention, if such an implementation does not require any undue burden because it is well within the competence of the skilled person. On the contrary, such a description may dilute the inventive teaching of a patent, making it more cumbersome for the skilled person to readily grasp the important technical points." 



T 2253/12 - link

Reasons for the Decision

3.2 Sufficiency of disclosure

3.2.1 In the statement of grounds the appellant argued against the Opposition Division's decision that the invention as defined in claim 1 of the main request was sufficiently disclosed. The fact that these arguments, substantiated under point 4 of that statement, were already presented at first instance is not, as such, a bar to their consideration by the Board, which has the competence to review the Opposition Division's decision. Pursuant to Article 12(4) RPBA the Board concludes that the appellant's objection that the invention as defined in claim 1 of the main request was not disclosed in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art is part of the appeal proceedings.

3.2.2 The appellant objected that the claimed invention was not sufficiently disclosed because the patent did not disclose how the pressure within the claimed system could be appropriately controlled and/or monitored.

The Board notes that, in order to assess whether the patent discloses the claimed invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art, the common general knowledge of the skilled person is to be duly taken into account. There is no need for an exhaustive description of generally known technical details to be implemented according to the invention, if such an implementation does not require any undue burden because it is well within the competence of the skilled person. On the contrary, such a description may dilute the inventive teaching of a patent, making it more cumbersome for the skilled person to readily grasp the important technical points.

In the present case the skilled person, based on the common general knowledge in the art, can carry out the claimed invention without any undue burden. As the respondent and the Opposition Division observed, there are several known straight-forward possibilities of finely varying the pressure in a system for stimulating the healing of tissue in a wound site as claimed. This could easily be done, for example, via the means for applying the negative pressure itself. If a vacuum pump is used, the pump could be reversible or, when idle, not sealed, thereby permitting a decrease of suction. Monitoring the actual pressure at the wound site can easily be done by providing a suitable pressure sensor, as generally known to the skilled person.

3.2.3 For these reasons the patent discloses the invention as defined in claim 1 of the main request in a manner sufficiently clear and complete to be carried out by a person skilled in the art. It follows that the ground for opposition under Article 100(b) EPC does not prejudice the maintenance of the patent on the basis of the main request.