Key points
- This is an opposition appeal. The opponent argues that claim 1 is insufficiently disclosed by not specifying all essential features.
- The Board considers claim 1 to be sufficiently disclosed: “Maßgeblich ist hierbei nicht, ob der unabhängige Anspruch alle wesentlichen Merkmale definiert, sondern ob die gesamte Patentschrift dem Fachmann wenigstens ein gangbares Ausführungsbeispiel aufzeigt, wie die in Anspruch 1 definierte Erfindung umsetzbar ist.” (emphasis added)
- The patent teaches at least one way for “Umsetzung der Erfindung” (German original) so that the invention is sufficiently disclosed, Article 100(b) EPC.
EPO T 1809/17
https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t171809du1.html
decision text omitted
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.