1.3.9 Interprétation d'une revendication pour apprécier s'il est satisfait à l'article 123(2) CBE
T 1886/22 × View decision
Résumé
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).
Dans l'affaire T 1408/04, la chambre a estimé que, alors que les revendications doivent être interprétées par l'homme du métier qui est "animé par la volonté de comprendre" et de façon à éviter "de cultiver des malentendus", cela signifiait que seules les interprétations illogiques du point de vue technique devraient être exclues (voir la décision T 190/99). Les termes devant être interprétés avaient une interprétation plus large du point de vue technique que celle envisagée par le requérant. Une interprétation par l'homme du métier "animé par la volonté de comprendre" n'exigeait pas qu'un terme large soit interprété de façon plus stricte (même si l'interprétation stricte faisait référence à une structure très courante, mais non exclusive, dans le domaine technique concerné) mais qu'un terme large devrait être interprété compte tenu de toutes les interprétations logiques du point de vue technique. En se fondant sur cette compréhension des termes limitatifs incorporés à la revendication, la chambre a conclu que la modification de la revendication 1 du brevet délivré entraînait une généralisation intermédiaire.
Dans l'affaire T 241/13, la chambre a estimé que la description ne définissait pas précisément l'expression "niveau minimum d'intensité" ; l'interprétation que le titulaire du brevet donnait à cette expression n'était pas clairement exclue. Cependant, le fait qu'une expression ambiguë, telle que déposée, puisse être interprétée d'une certaine manière, ne garantissait pas à lui seul qu'une modification basée sur cette interprétation soit conforme à l'art. 100c) CBE, qui requiert une divulgation directe et univoque dans la demande telle que déposée.
Dans l'affaire T 1791/16, la chambre a estimé que si une revendication est ambiguë, il est nécessaire, dans l'intérêt de la sécurité juridique, de prendre en considération toutes les interprétations de cette revendication qui sont rationnelles sur le plan technique. Si l'une de ces interprétations comporte un objet s'étendant au-delà du contenu de la demande telle qu'elle a été déposée, force est de conclure qu'un objet a été ajouté.
- T 1886/22