5.2. Indication of at least 'one way'

An invention is in principle sufficiently disclosed if at least one way is clearly indicated enabling the person skilled in the art to carry out the invention. If this is the case, the non-availability of some particular variants of a functionally defined component feature of the invention is immaterial to sufficiency as long as there are suitable variants known to the skilled person through the disclosure or common general knowledge which provide the same effect for the invention (T 292/85, OJ 1989, 275). This has been confirmed by many decisions, for example: T 81/87 (OJ 1990, 250), T 301/87 (OJ 1990, 335), T 212/88 (OJ 1992, 28), T 238/88 (OJ 1992, 709), T 60/89 (OJ 1992, 268), T 182/89 (OJ 1991, 391), T 19/90 (OJ 1990, 476), T 740/90, T 456/91 and T 242/92.

If a claim comprises non-working embodiments, the consequences differ depending on the circumstances (G 1/03, OJ 2004, 413, point 2.5.2 of the Reasons, citing T 238/88, OJ 1992, 709; T 292/85, OJ 1989, 275, and T 301/87, OJ 1990, 335). This finding from G 1/03 is analysed in T 2210/16. See also T 875/16 (points 7 and 35 of the Reasons).

In T 941/16 (field of biochemistry) the board stated that the requirements of sufficiency of disclosure applied to all technical fields. Thus, depending on the individual case, inventions relating to a generic chemical formula comprising non-working embodiments with functional features contravened the requirements of Art. 83 EPC too.

In T 1809/17 the opponent argued that claim 1 was insufficiently disclosed in that it did not specify all essential features. For the board, however, the crucial point was not whether the independent claim defined all essential features but rather whether the patent specification as a whole provided the skilled person with at least one workable example of how the claimed invention could be implemented.