Key points
- The OD found the claims to be insufficiently disclosed because it would be unclear how the advantage, mentioned in the description but not recited in the claims, can be achieved. The Board reverses in view of G2/03. This is all fairly standard case law, except for one sentence in the Board's decision.
- The Board agrees that the skilled person can reduce the claimed subject-matter to practice.
- “Die Einspruchsabteilung und die Beschwerdegegnerin [opponent] sehen das jedoch nicht als hinreichend an, sondern meinen, die Lehre der Erfindung müsse so ausführlich offenbart sein, dass der Fachmann eine Wirkung zuverlässig erzielen könne, die in der Beschreibung als angestrebt offenbart sein, selbst wenn der Anspruch diese Wirkung nicht ausdrücklich fordere.”
- The Board explains that in view of G1/03, r.2.5.2, “Dabei sei entscheidend, ob eine einschlägige Wirkung im Anspruch gefordert werde oder nicht. In jenem Fall folge unzureichende Offenbarung, in diesem ein Mangel an erfinderischer Tätigkeit.”
- The Board briefly discusses the problem-solution approach, in an obiter remark r.4.3.3 in translation: " The problem-and-solution approach used by the EPO to assess inventive step defines it as the objective technical problem to achieve the effect that is determined by comparing the claimed invention with the "closest prior art". An effect that is not claimed is not included in this comparison. In addition, the objective technical problem is regularly different from the (only) disclosed, "subjective" problem."
- I am not sure if the sentence in italics is established case law (original : Dabei geht eine nicht beanspruchte Wirkung nicht in diesen Vergleich ein). If it is many claims directed to a compound as such (e.g., say, the dasatinib molecule) would lack a technical effect.
T 1066/18 -
https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t181066du1.html
4.3.3 Der am EPA weit überwiegend verwendete Aufgabe-Lösungs-Ansatz zur Bewertung der erfinderischen Tätigkeit bestimmt es als die objektive technische Aufgabe, diejenige Wirkung zu erzielen, die durch Vergleich der beanspruchten Erfindung mit dem "nächstliegenden Stand der Technik" bestimmt wird. Dabei geht eine nicht beanspruchte Wirkung nicht in diesen Vergleich ein. Zudem ist die objektive technische Aufgabe regelmäßig von der (nur) offenbarten, "subjektiven" Aufgabe verschieden.
Peter, my eyebrows shot up, on reading that technical effects not claimed cannot count towards patentability under the PSA. I had always thought that features belong in the claims, while the technical effects delivered by the claimed feature combination properly belong in the description. Was I wrong all along?
ReplyDeleteI think the board simply meant to say that if the effect is not claimed, then said effect would not be manifested when comparing the claim with the CPA, meaning that said effect would not becomme the distinguishing feature. To support this, the Board subsequently further explained that the objective problem is offen different from the subjective problem.
ReplyDeleteI guess it is not about a case law, but simply a further explaination of the PSA in the current case.
On reflection, perhaps this is no more than the established dilemma. If you don't put the effect in the claim you go down under Art 56. Conversely, if you do write it into the claim, although you are better placed under Art 56 you are more exposed to risk under Art 83. Is there anything more here than that?
ReplyDeleteI think there is more, the remark of the Board in present decision T1066/18 would moot upcoming referral G2/21 because that case is about a product claim (insecticide composition) and a technical effect derived from the description and post-published data (at least, that is what patentee says in that case). There is no technical effect recited in the claims at issue in G2/21. Note also that many basic pharma patents have a pure compound claim as the claim 1. The telling thing is that the present Board may have intended to simply mention a basic rule under the PSA that turns out to be controversial in the chemistry/pharma field.
ReplyDelete