T2030/20 - Using the description to interpret the claims

Key points

• The Board, in machine translation: "According to established case law, the terms used in a patent are to be given the meaning customary in the relevant prior art, unless a special meaning is given to them in the description of the patent (see Case Law of the Boards of Appeal, 10th edition 2022, Chapter II.A.6.3.3; see also T 1473/19, point 3.13 of the Reasons). If the latter is the case, this may also lead to a claim feature being given a broader meaning in the light of the description than the meaning customary in the relevant prior art. This is the case in the present case."
• the patent gives the term "immersion tube [Tauchrohr] " in the description a broader meaning that goes beyond the actual meaning of the word, according to which a dip tube can only protrude into the reaction chamber, i.e. can end anywhere within the reaction chamber above the liquid level. This is particularly clear from the following passages"
• "Therefore, according to the disclosure in paragraphs [0045], [0060], [0075] and [0086], the patent leaves no doubt that a dip tube [Tauchrohr] according to claim 1 can preferably be dipped into the culture broth, but also represents a dip tube within the meaning of the patent if the tube only protrudes into the reaction chamber."
• There is therefore no reason to deviate from the view of the opposition division that the subject-matter of claim 1 as granted is not novel over the disclosure in E1.
• An auxiliary request additionally specifies a diameter.
• "In the board's view, the phrase "a diameter" must be understood in the overall context of the claim and the patent specification (T 367/20, Reasons 1.3.2) as a measure of the extension of the head plate, i.e. as a measure of its overall diameter."
• There is also a separate attack based on public prior use.
• " The UniVessel single-use bioreactor described in Annexes 2 to 6 is, according to point 3.1 of the grounds of the contested decision, a single-use bioreactor in which [features] "
• "it is disputed whether the term "integral" in claim 1 can be interpreted broadly to include adhesive joints."
• "The head plate of the UniVessel bioreactor therefore does not meet the requirement of a one-piece design according to claim 1 in the usual technical sense. This understanding of the term "integral" is supported by the description of the patent."
• "The Board therefore concludes that the claimed subject-matter according to auxiliary request 4 is not obvious on the basis of the cited prior art. The appeal is therefore successful within the scope of auxiliary request 4."

EPO 

You can find the link to the decision and an extract of it after the jump.

https://www.epo.org/de/boards-of-appeal/decisions/t202030du1