1.3. Maßstab für die Beurteilung der Einhaltung von Artikel 123 (2) EPÜ
T 1084/22 × View decision
Zusammenfassung
In T 1084/22 the patent concerned insulating glazing units, which typically consist of two glass sheets separated by a perimeter spacer. Specifically, it related to a method for creating such units. This involved providing a spacer body with adhesive on both sides in a storage container. Claim 1 was amended during examination to specify that the adhesive was a pressure sensitive adhesive.
The board was not convinced by the argument put forward by the appellant (patent proprietor) which aimed to show that the feature was implicitly derivable from the description.
The board found that the second line of argument submitted by the appellant was not convincing either. The appellant had submitted that the reference in the description of the application as filed to HBP8 (a US patent), which mentioned pressure sensitive adhesives, also provided an original basis for the added feature.
The board explained that the appealed decision referred to conditions developed in the case law for being able to incorporate features from a cross-referenced document (see in particular T 689/90). Thus, only under particular conditions would adding features from a cross-referenced document to a claim not be contrary to Art. 123(2) EPC, namely if (a) the description of the invention as filed left the skilled reader in no doubt that protection was sought or may be sought for those features; (b) that they implicitly clearly belonged to the description of the invention contained in the application as filed and thus to the content of the application as filed; and (c) that they were precisely defined and identifiable within the total technical information contained in the reference document.
The board viewed these conditions, along with alternative or reformulated criteria found in the cases cited in Case Law of the Boards of Appeal, 10th ed. 2022, II.E.1.2.4, as different applications of the "gold standard". While different tests had been developed, they could only assist in determining whether an amendment complied with Art. 123(2) EPC, but did not replace the "gold standard" and should not lead to a different result. Thus, the board considered it sufficient and appropriate to apply the "gold standard" principle to this case.
In a case of incorporating features from a cross-d document, the "gold standard" essentially required that the skilled reader had to be able to directly and unambiguously derive which subject-matter of the incorporated document was part of the original application. In other words, which features of the application were to be taken from the referenced document.
Therefore, the question that the board needed to answer was whether, in the absence of any hindsight or knowledge of the amended claim, the skilled person reading the original documents would directly and unambiguously derive from the cross-reference to HBP8 that the adhesive's pressure sensitive nature was a feature to be incorporated from HBP8 into the original application. This required that when the skilled reader of the application as filed consulted HPB8 as instructed it was immediately clear to them that it was that feature and that feature alone that was to be included. If that feature was disclosed in a certain technical context in the cross-referenced document, then, applying the same standard as for intermediate generalisations, isolation of the feature was justified only in the absence of any clearly recognisable functional or structural relationship.
In the board's view it was neither immediately clear to the skilled person from the cross-reference to HBP8 that it was the feature of the adhesive being pressure sensitive that was to be included, nor that that feature could be taken out of its context in HPB8.
Hence, the board concluded that the amendment to claim 1 specifying the adhesive as "pressure sensitive" extended the patent's subject matter beyond the content of the original application.
T 1054/22 × View decision
Zusammenfassung
In T 1054/22 the examining division had concluded that claim 1 of the main request did not fulfil requirements of Art. 123(2) or 76(1) EPC, among other things, and it refused the patent application.
In its submissions on appeal, the applicant had argued that applying the criteria of G 1/93 (point 16 of the Reasons), the amendments did not result in an unwarranted advantage. Amended claim 1 of the main request was based on the earlier application as filed. This applied in particular to the amendments concerning the omega-6 to omega-3 ratio of 4:1 or greater and the concentration of omega-6 fatty acids (4-75% by weight of total lipids) and omega-3 fatty acids (0.1-30% by weight of total lipids).
The board dismissed the appeal. It explained that determining whether an amendment complied with the requirements of Art. 123(2) and 76(1) EPC was assessed using the "gold standard". This term was coined in G 2/10, in which the jurisprudence developed by the Enlarged Board in opinion G 3/89 and decision G 11/91 was confirmed.
The board explained that G 1/93 primarily concerned a case in which a granted claim could not be maintained unamended in opposition proceedings because the claim was found to contravene Art. 123(2) EPC. The examining division had allowed an amendment that should not have been allowed. As explained in G 2/10 (point 4.3 of the Reasons, last paragraph), G 1/93 was not intended to modify the "gold standard".
According to G 1/93, the purpose of Art. 123(2) EPC (and Art. 76(1) EPC) was to prevent an applicant from gaining an unwarranted advantage by obtaining patent protection for something it had not properly disclosed on the date of filing of the application. An added feature limiting the scope of the claim may still contravene Art. 123(2) EPC. An example of this, explicitly mentioned in G 1/93, is a limiting feature that creates an inventive selection not disclosed in the application as filed or otherwise derivable therefrom.
In the case in hand, value ranges had been added to claim 1 of the main request, in features a), (i) and (ii). The question was whether the skilled person would have derived these amendments directly and unambiguously, using common general knowledge, from the entirety of the earlier application as filed. What had to be examined was not only whether there was a basis for each of the features added by the amendments but also whether the skilled person would have derived the combination of features a), (i) and (ii), and that combination of features alone, from the earlier application as filed.
The board concluded that no basis could be found in the earlier application as filed for the combination of the concentration of omega-6 fatty acids of 4-75% by weight of total lipids and omega-3 fatty acids of 0.1-30% by weight of total lipids (feature (i) of claim 1 of the main request). As to the ratio (feature a) of claim 1 of the main request), there was no basis in the earlier application as filed for an open-ended ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acids of 4:1 or greater. Thus, claim 1 of the main request contravened Art. 76(1) EPC.
Jede Änderung an den die Offenbarung betreffenden Teilen einer europäischen Patentanmeldung oder eines europäischen Patents (der Beschreibung, der Patentansprüche und der Zeichnungen) unterliegt dem in Art. 123 (2) EPÜ statuierten zwingenden Erweiterungsverbot und darf daher unabhängig vom Kontext der vorgenommenen Änderung nur im Rahmen dessen erfolgen, was der Fachmann der Gesamtheit dieser Unterlagen in ihrer ursprünglich eingereichten Fassung unter Heranziehung des allgemeinen Fachwissens – objektiv und bezogen auf den Anmeldetag – unmittelbar und eindeutig entnehmen kann (G 3/89, ABl. 1993,117; G 11/91, ABl. 1993, 125; G 2/10, ABl. 2012, 376, worin dieser Test als "Goldstandard" bezeichnet wird; für offenbarte Disclaimer bestätigt in G 1/16, ABl. 2018, A70; zu nicht offenbarten Disclaimern s. aber Kapitel II.E.1.7.2 c)). Zu prüfen ist, ob die Änderung dazu führt, dass der Fachmann neue technische Informationen erhält (G 2/10).
Nach Ansicht der Kammer in T 1937/17 hat ein "technischer Beitrag" außer für die in G 1/93 (ABl. 1994, 541) erläuterten Zwecke keine Relevanz, wenn über die Zulässigkeit von Änderungen nach Art. 123 (2) EPÜ entschieden wird. Stattdessen ist der in G 2/10 formulierte Goldstandard das einzige anzuwendende Kriterium. Ebenso befand die Kammer in T 768/20, dass G 1/93 eine (auf Disclaimer) begrenzte Ausnahme von der allgemeinen – als "Goldstandard" bezeichneten – Regel für die Zulässigkeit von Änderungen darstellt. Auf Grundlage einer eingehenden Analyse der Rechtsprechung der Großen Beschwerdekammer wies die Kammer das vom Beschwerdeführer (Patentinhaber) vorgebrachte Argument zurück, dass der Goldstandard auf solche Änderungen beschränkt sei, die einen technischen Beitrag zur beanspruchten Erfindung leisten.
Wie der Goldstandard zeigt, ist aus der Sicht des Fachmanns zu prüfen, ob die Erfordernisse des Art. 123 (2) EPÜ erfüllt sind (s. unten Kapitel II.E.1.3.2 "Sicht des Fachmanns").
Der Gegenstand muss zumindest implizit offenbart sein (T 860/00; s. auch G 2/10, ABl. 2012, 376), s. unten Kapitel II.E.1.3.3 "Implizite Offenbarung".
Die Kammern haben im Hinblick auf diverse, für verschiedene Änderungsfälle entwickelte Tests betont, dass diese nur ein Indiz dafür liefern sollten, ob eine Änderung mit Art. 123 (2) EPÜ in der Auslegung gemäß dem Goldstandard vereinbar sei. Sie könnten bei der Beurteilung der Zulässigkeit einer Änderung helfen, ersetzten aber nicht den Goldstandard und sollten zu keinem anderen Ergebnis führen als dieser. S. z. B. T 648/10, T 2561/11, T 46/15, T 1420/15, T 1472/15, T 553/15, T 85/16, T 1189/16 und T 437/17 im Hinblick auf den "Wesentlichkeitstest", T 1471/10 und T 1791/12 zur "Zwischenverallgemeinerung", T 1255/18 im Hinblick auf das "Zwei-Listen-Prinzip" und T 873/94, ABl. 1997, 456, T 60/03 sowie T 150/07 im Hinblick auf den "Neuheitstest"; zu beachten ist allerdings, dass für nicht offenbarte Disclaimer besondere Kriterien gelten. Näheres zu den Tests enthalten die Kapitel II.E.1.4.4 "Wesentlichkeits- oder Dreipunkte-Test", II.E.1.9. "Zwischenverallgemeinerungen", II.E.1.3.7 "Der 'Neuheitstest'" und II.E.1.7. "Disclaimer".
In T 1121/17 stellte die Kammer fest, dass es für die Zwecke des Art. 123 (2) EPÜ entscheidend ist, ob die Änderungen im Rahmen dessen bleiben, was der Fachmann der Gesamtheit der Anmeldung in ihrer ursprünglich eingereichten Fassung unter Heranziehung des allgemeinen Fachwissens - objektiv und bezogen auf den Anmeldetag - unmittelbar und eindeutig entnehmen kann ("Goldstandard" gemäß G 2/10, ABl. 2012, 376). Eine den Schutzbereich des ursprünglich eingereichten Anspruchs erweiternde Änderung, z. B. durch Verallgemeinerung, sodass bestimmte Materialien in Mengen vorliegen, die ursprünglich aus dem Anspruch ausgeschlossen waren, verstößt dann nicht gegen Art. 123 (2) EPÜ, wenn der geänderte Gegenstand aus der Anmeldung in der eingereichten Fassung unmittelbar und eindeutig hervorgeht.