1.3.9 Anspruchsauslegung bei der Beurteilung der Einhaltung von Artikel 123 (2) EPÜ
T 1886/22 × View decision
Zusammenfassung
In T 1886/22 the interpretation of feature F in claim 1 of auxiliary request 5, in particular the term "extends through", was relevant to assess compliance with Art. 123(2) EPC.
The board did not agree with the approach taken in T 1791/16 that all technically reasonable interpretations of an ambiguous claim must be considered in assessing whether the claim contains added subject-matter, and that it is sufficient that one of these interpretations leads to added subject-matter in order to conclude that the claim is not allowable. Rather, the board was of the view that it must first be determined how the person skilled in the art would interpret the relevant feature before it can be assessed whether this feature is disclosed in the application as filed and, accordingly, whether it adds subject-matter (see T 367/20).
The board stated that the terms in a given patent claim must be interpreted in a uniform, consistent and objective manner (see T 177/22), including for the purposes of assessing e.g. added subject-matter and novelty. In the case at issue only the narrower of the two possible – and both technically reasonable – claim interpretations could lead to added subject-matter. Hence, the approach suggested in T 1791/16 would also require a deviation from the established practice to interpret a claim in doubt rather more broadly than more narrowly.
The respondent (opponent) had argued that the word "through" in its ordinary and broadest interpretation meant "from one end to the other", so that feature F must be interpreted as requiring the proximal portion of each of the arms to extend through the entire bushing (interpretation (a)). However, as submitted by the appellant (patent proprietor), the word "through" can also mean "along within", as supported, inter alia, by the dictionary definition A.2 given in D15 (interpretation (b)). Interpreted with this different meaning, feature F required the proximal portion of each of the arms to extend "along within" the bushing, i.e. along a certain distance within the bushing. The board agreed with the appellant that both interpretations (a) and (b) were linguistically and technically sensible and that interpretation (b) was broader than and encompassed interpretation (a).
The board held that on the basis of the wording of feature F alone, and in the absence of any context, it could not be concluded which one of the two aforementioned interpretations took precedence over the other. One could only arrive at such a conclusion when interpreting feature F in the technical context of claim 1. The person skilled in the art reading claim 1 as a whole would understand that for the catheter tip portion to be coupled to the distal end of the catheter shaft it was sufficient that the proximal portion of each of the arms extended partially through the proximal bushing, in other words, that it extended into the bushing. It was irrelevant whether the proximal portion extended further into the bushing, in particular whether it extended through the entire bushing and thus terminated proximal thereto, or whether instead the proximal portion terminated somewhere within the bushing. The skilled person would therefore interpret feature F broadly according to interpretation (b), which left open where the proximal portion of the arms terminates, and would not interpret feature F narrowly according to interpretation (a). In fact, to do so would be tantamount to reading an unjustified limitation into the claim.
In the boards' view, interpreting feature F according to interpretation (b) was not inconsistent with the patent specification, which did not support one interpretation over the other.
The board referred to paragraph [0097] of the application as filed which disclosed explicitly that the longitudinally-extending arms "exit from the distal end of the proximal bushing". According to the board and contrary to the respondent's view, this implied necessarily that the arms extend at least partially through the bushing, i.e. along within it, otherwise they could not "exit" from the bushing. This view was also consistent with the figures of the application as filed which showed an embodiment of a catheter as claimed, such as Figure 33, where the arms were shown as being gripped within a notch formed within the bushing at its distal end. The board therefore concluded that feature F (according to interpretation (b)) did not constitute subject-matter extending beyond the content of the application as filed.
See also T 1345/23, which relates to a patent originating from a divisional application and addresses the same issues in the context of compliance with Art. 76(1) EPC. It was issued by the same board on the same date as T 1886/22 (joint hearing).
In T 1408/04 befand die Kammer, dass man die Ansprüche zwar mit der Bereitschaft auslegen müsse, sie zu verstehen, und nicht mit dem Willen, sie misszuverstehen, doch solle dies lediglich heißen, dass technisch unsinnige Auslegungen ausgeschlossen werden sollten (s. T 190/99). Die fraglichen Begriffe seien technisch breiter auszulegen als vom Beschwerdeführer vorgesehen. Für einen zum Verständnis bereiten Leser müsse ein breiter Begriff nicht enger ausgelegt werden (auch wenn sich die engere Auslegung wie im vorliegenden Fall auf eine auf dem betreffenden technischen Gebiet sehr gebräuchliche, aber nicht ausschließlich verwendete Struktur beziehe). Vielmehr sei der breite Begriff unter Berücksichtigung aller technisch logischen Auslegungen zu interpretieren. Ausgehend von diesem Verständnis der in den Anspruch aufgenommenen beschränkenden Begriffe kam die Kammer zu dem Schluss, dass die Änderung der erteilten Fassung von Anspruch 1 zu einer Zwischenverallgemeinerung führte.
In T 241/13 stellte die Kammer fest, dass die Beschreibung keine genaue Definition der Bedeutung des Begriffs "Mindestintensität" enthielt; die vom Patentinhaber vorgebrachte Auslegung war nicht eindeutig ausgeschlossen. Dass ein solcher mehrdeutiger Begriff in der eingereichten Fassung in einem bestimmten Sinn ausgelegt werden kann, reicht jedoch nicht aus, um zu gewährleisten, dass eine auf dieser Auslegung beruhende Änderung mit Art. 100 c) EPÜ vereinbar ist, der eine unmittelbare und eindeutige Offenbarung in der Anmeldung in der eingereichten Fassung vorschreibt.
In T 1791/16 erklärte die Kammer, dass im Interesse der Rechtssicherheit bei einem mehrdeutigen Anspruch alle Auslegungen zu berücksichtigen sind, die technisch Sinn ergeben. Enthält eine dieser Auslegungen einen Gegenstand, der über den Inhalt der Anmeldung in der ursprünglich eingereichten Fassung hinausgeht, muss geschlossen werden, dass eine unzulässige Erweiterung vorliegt.
- T 1886/22