Claims in patent applications typically involve generalisations which inherently include an aspect of speculation. Patent applications in the field of medicine represent in this respect no exception. The approaches developed in the jurisprudence of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO for the assessment of sufficiency of disclosure and inventive step specifically take account of the technical contribution actually disclosed in a patent application to avoid patent protection resulting from unreasonable speculation on the basis of propositions that are prima facie implausible (see also points 2.6, 2.7 and 5 of the Reasons).

Exceptions to the "gold standard" (point 2.2 of the reasons)

Selections in two or more lists, see points 1.4 and 1.5 of the reasons

The following questions are referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal:

I. Does the EPC confer jurisdiction on the EPO to determine whether a party validly claims to be a successor in title as referred to in Article 87(1)(b) EPC?

II. If question I is answered in the affirmative Can a party B validly rely on the priority right claimed in a PCT-application for the purpose of claiming priority rights under Article 87(1) EPC in the case where

1) a PCT-application designates party A as applicant for the US only and party B as applicant for other designated States, including regional European patent protection and

2) the PCT-application claims priority from an earlier patent application that designates party A as the applicant and

3) the priority claimed in the PCT-application is in compliance with Article 4 of the Paris Convention?

Reasons 3.2 on argument that claimed invention is insufficiently disclosed across whole breadth

Die Streichung eines in einer Anmeldung wie ursprünglich eingereicht ausdrücklich als "Nicht-Teil" der Erfindung offenbarten Disclaimers ist nicht zulässig, wenn die Streichung dazu führt, dass der "Nicht-Teil" teilweise doch beansprucht wird. Die Tatsache, dass es sich bei der Anmeldung um eine Teilanmeldung handelt und dass der Disclaimer patentrechtliche Gründe hatte, ist dabei unerheblich.

It is the responsibility of the representative to consult with its client (appellant) when presenting arguments about essential distinguishing features of the invention over the closest prior art. It is however the ultimate responsibility of the appellant to file amendments. Generally, these distinguishing features, presented as essential ones, could not anymore be considered as being obvious errors afterwards (Reasons, 3.5.6); The disclosure of a family member of a document cited in an application can not be used to dispel doubts as to the meaning of an ambiguous part of the application (Reasons 3.13.1); the (technically) skilled person might be considered a multilingual person but not normally a linguist (Reasons 3.13.7).

A new definition or the re-defining of a known term does not add subject matter, if there is pertinent disclosure in the application as a whole (point 18).

 (1) As to unity of invention under Article 82 EPC, only if the application relates to more than one "invention", the notion of "a single general inventive concept" under Article 82 EPC and the concept of the "same or corresponding special technical features" under Rule 44(1) EPC have to be assessed for the purpose of deciding upon unity of invention (see Reasons, point 1). (2) As to a refund of further search fees under Rule 64(2) EPC, the decision to refuse a patent application may be understood to implicitly contain the decision to refuse the refund of a further search fee, if the examining division's intent is clear (see Reasons, point 4). (3) A statement such as "the next procedural step will be summons to oral proceedings during which the application will be refused" made prior to a final decision to refuse a patent application may infringe a party's right to be heard and thus may lead to a substantial procedural violation (see Reasons, point 5).

1. Die vorliegende, auf maschinellem Lernen insbesondere im Zusammenhang mit einem künstlichen neuronalen Netz beruhende Erfindung ist nicht ausreichend offenbart, da das erfindungsgemäße Training des künstlichen neuronalen Netzes mangels Offenbarung nicht ausführbar ist.

2. Da sich im vorliegenden Fall das beanspruchte Verfahren vom Stand der Technik nur durch ein künstliches neuronales Netz unterscheidet, dessen Training nicht im Detail offenbart ist, führt die Verwendung des künstlichen neuronalen Netzes nicht zu einem speziellen technischen Effekt, der erfinderische Tätigkeit begründen könnte.

Zur Möglichkeit und den Folgen von Berichtigungen inhaltlich unzutreffender, in der Patentschrift enthaltener Hinweise auf den Stand der Technik, siehe Punkte 2. bis 2.5 und 3.3.3 bis 3.3.6

The following questions are referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal:

I. Does the EPC confer jurisdiction on the EPO to determine whether a party validly claims to be a successor in title as referred to in Article 87(1)(b) EPC?

II. If question I is answered in the affirmative Can a party B validly rely on the priority right claimed in a PCT-application for the purpose of claiming priority rights under Article 87(1) EPC in the case where

1) a PCT-application designates party A as applicant for the US only and party B as applicant for other designated States, including regional European patent protection and

2) the PCT-application claims priority from an earlier patent application that designates party A as the applicant and

3) the priority claimed in the PCT-application is in compliance with Article 4 of the Paris Convention?

The criteria set out in the Guidelines for Examination in the European Patent Office (November 2016 update) at paragraph H.IV.3.5, concerning the allowability of amendments under Article 123(3) EPC, are inappropriate for the assessment of compliance with Article 123(2) EPC (see point 1.5.1 of the reasons).

Assessing compliance with Article 123(3) EPC does not include a test taking into account national infringement laws such as the rules on contributory infringement (point 6.2 of the Reasons).

1. Wenn eine Beschwerde vor der Beschwerdekamme anhängig ist, hat die Rechtsabteilung keine ausschließliche Zuständigkeit für die Frage der Unterbrechung des Verfahrens (siehe 1.4 der Entscheidungsgründe).

2. Setzt ein Patentinhaber in Kenntnis der Unterbrechungs-voraussetzungen, die ausschließlich in seiner Sphäre liegen, nach dem Wegfall der Unterbrechungsvoraussetzungen das Verfahren über Jahre uneingeschränkt fort, ohne sich darauf zu berufen, so erscheint es unbillig die Unterbrechung zu einem so späten Zeitpunkt geltend zu machen, mit der Folge, dass das bis dahin erfolgte Verfahren, an dem er bis dato aktiv mitgewirkt hat, zu wiederholen wäre. Dies widerspricht dem Grundsatz von Treu und Glauben (siehe 1.5 der Entscheidungs-gründe).

3. Wird die Lösung eines technischen Problems mithilfe eines neu formulierten und damit unüblichen Parameters definiert, so trifft den Patentinhaber eine besondere Pflicht, sämtliche Informationen zu offenbaren. Das beanspruchte "Betriebsereignis" und das beanspruchte "Reaktionsmuster" sind als solche "unüblichen Parameter" zu verstehen. Zwar haben sie einen gewissen Sinn in der deutschen Sprache, aber nicht ohne Weiteres einen technischen Sinn im Rahmen der Steuerung eines Prozessorssystems. Der Beitrag der Erfindung ist nur eine sehr allgemeine Idee, nämlich Umgebungsparameter in einem Überwachungs- und Steuerungsprozess zu berücksichtigen. Die Beschreibung enthält kein Ausführungsbeispiel, das diese Idee erläutern und darstellen würde. Weiterhin ist es nicht möglich diese Idee hinsichtlich der Parameter "Betriebsereignis" und "Reaktionsmuster" durch die Offenbarung der Beschreibung zu abstrahieren. (siehe Entscheidungsgründe 3.7, 3.8 and 3.13).

Sufficiency of disclosure - burden of proof, Novelty - new clinical situation

Objection of insufficient disclosure based on the subject-matter of a dependent claim (see point 5).

If a claim is ambiguous/unclear, all technically reasonable claim interpretations must be considered. If one of those interpretations contains matter that extends beyond the content of the application as originally filed, it must be concluded that added subject-matter is present (reasons point 11).

1) When fall-back positions for a feature are described in terms of a list of converging alternatives, the choice of a more or less preferred element from such a list should not be treated as an arbitrary selection, because this choice does not lead to a singling out of an invention from among a plurality of distinct options, but simply to a subject-matter based on a more or less restricted version of said feature.

2) A claim amended on the basis of multiple selections from lists of converging alternatives might be considered to meet the requirements of Article 123(2) EPC if: - the subject-matter resulting from the multiple selections is not associated with an undisclosed technical contribution, and - the application as filed includes a pointer to the combination of features resulting from the multiple selections.

(1) With respect to the assessment of compliance with Article 123(2) EPC, the fact that a claim of a patent is to be construed by a mind willing to understand and not a mind desirous of misunderstanding does not mean that the description and the drawings have automatically to be consulted when an "ambiguous" feature (i.e. a feature which at least theoretically allows more than one interpretation) occurs in the claim, or where the claim as a whole includes one or more inconsistencies, to resolve that ambiguity or inconsistency. Rather, the claim should essentially be read and interpreted on its own merits (see points 2.6.1 and 2.6.2 of the Reasons).

(2) As to the issue of an "inescapable trap", see point 4 of the Reasons.

Plausibility - (points 2.1 to 2.8, 7.2 and 11)

Implicitly disclosed disclaimer (see point 4 of the reasons)

See points 3.1 to 3.7.3 of the Reasons

Application of Rule 80 EPC (see point 6 of the Reasons) Treating insufficiency objections step by step (see point 12.2.10 of the Reasons)

Priority claim held invalid in view of the transfer of the priority right within the priority year (reasons, 3).

The added features cannot be considered to be the deliberate result of technical considerations directed to the solution of the technical problem involved. In the absence of any identified technical purpose justifying the features in question, their selection in a claim is arbitrary (cf. points 16-22).

A request to postpone the taking of the decision on the allowability of an appeal at least until a divisional application is filed would oblige a board to examine questions outside of the framework of the appeal concerned and is therefore to be refused (see Reasons 4 to 4.5).

See Reasons, point 5.11: Where an expression in a granted claim, taken literally and in isolation, would have the effect of excluding all of the disclosed embodiments from the scope of protection, but where a definition of the expression may be derived from the patent itself which would locate (at least some of) the disclosed embodiments within the ambit of the claim, and provided this definition is not manifestly unreasonable, having regard to the normal meaning of the words used in the expression, then in judging compliance with the requirements of Article 123(3) EPC, the scope of protection should normally be considered to include at least that which would fall within the terms of the claim understood according to this definition.

An invention is not insufficiently disclosed in the sense of Article 83 EPC just because a lack of support in the sense of Article 84 EPC of a broad claim cannot be resolved by consulting the description.

In case of an unclear parameter defined in a claim whose values required in the claim are indicated in the specification to be essential to solving the problem underlying the patent at issue, the ability of the skilled person to solve that problem by reproducing what is claimed is not a suitable criterion for assessing sufficiency of disclosure when the problem or an effect derivable from it are not explicitly or implicitly part of the definition of the claimed subject-matter (point 9.8 of the Reasons).

The requirement in G 1/03 that an accidental novelty-destroying disclosure has to be completely irrelevant for assessing inventive step is to be understood not as an alternative, or additional criterion, but as a consequence of the criterion that, from a technical point of view, said disclosure is so unrelated and remote that the person skilled in the art would never have taken it into consideration when making or working on the invention (points 2 and 7).

Priority claim held invalid in view of the transfer of the priority right within the priority year (reasons, 4).

In view of Article 69(1) EPC which states that the description and the drawings shall be used to interpret the claims when determining the extent of the protection conferred by a European patent, after grant, any information in the description and/or drawings of a patent directly related to a feature of a claim and potentially restricting its interpretation cannot be removed from the patent without infringing Article 123(3) EPC.