For discussion: Has the requirement that claims be «supported by the description» been perverted over time?

Reading time: 13 minutes

Objections with respect to alleged violations of Art. 84 EPC have become more and more cumbersome in recent times. I cannot really tell why. The law has not changed ever since enactment of the EPC 1973 in this respect. But the EPO Guidelines were tightened substantially, purportedly merely reflecting long-standing practice. My experience is different. Back in the days, I had only been required to make features of independent claims also mandatory in the specification. A no-brainer that did no harm, so I complied. Nowadays, practitioners are regularly facing extensive objections to tidy up the specification to large extent, causing anything but minimally invasive changes.

The 2021 revision of the Guidelines caused an outcry amongst users, and the EPO made certain minor amendments in the next revision cycle of the Guidelines (see e.g. here). The most controversially discussed sections of the Guidelines are F-IV, 4.3 (inconsistencies), F-IV, 4.4 (claim-like clauses); don’t miss to tick the ‘show modifications’ checkbox on the right side.

However, the more general question is still unresolved:

Why the heck do we have to adapt the specification at all?

In my view, there is just no sound legal basis for it. I am fully aware that this position is controversial, running against the gist of some rather old decisions of Boards of Appeal of the EPO. My line of thinking is as follows. As always, I stand to be proven wrong. 

Article 84 at a glance

The mere wording of Art. 84 EPC is plain and simple (emphasis added):

Art. 84 — Claims
The claims shall define the matter for which protection is sought. They shall be clear and concise and be supported by the description.

The second sentence of Art. 84 EPC requires the claims to be

    1. clear;
    2. concise; and
    3. supported by the description.
the travaux préparatoires

It is evident from the TP that the first two criteria, i.e. clarity and conciseness were meant to reflect Art. 6 PCT in the new legal framework of the EPC:

The same holds true for the «support by the description» requirement, with an initially pretty different (but much clearer) wording:  

No patent claim shall contain subject matter that is not listed in the description.

The TP are silent about the reasons why the initially very clear wording of the third criterion had not been further pursued but rather been amended to exactly match Art. 6 PCT. In my view, the most likely reason is an attempt of harmonization of the wording. There is nothing in the TP that could suggest an intent of the legislator to change the substance of the initial draft, i.e. that the third criterion was simply meant to exclude subject-matter from the claims that is not listed in the description.

In the first place, all requirements of this provision had been included in the draft Implementing Regulations. Later, the sub-committee proposed to adopt the exact same wording of Art. 6 PCT, and to move it to the Convention itself:

In the first place, the draft article read as follows (exactly as Art. 6 PCT):

However, the Conference did not like the wording «fully supported by the description» and asked the Working Party to examine deletion of «fully» and the replacement by a less restrictive wording:

And, indeed, the term «fully» was deleted:

Even though the term «fully» was not replaced by a less restrictive wording, the TP leave no doubt about the legislator’s intent to prevent the third criterion from being interpreteded in the sense of the initial draft, i.e. that the claims shall be «fully supported by the description».

This is how we ended up with the wording of Art. 71a at the Conference:

Here is the final wording of the article, which has never been changed ever since:

For sake of completeness, I have reviewed the records of the Washington Conference on the PCT — which do not provide any further insight.

T 1989/18 — 3.3.04: Shaking the current practice to the very foundations

Applicants rarely risk a refusal merely for non-compliance with a formalistic objection concerning the «necessary» adaptation of the description once allowability of a set of claims has been indicated by the ED. Not so in the case underlying T 1989/18 — 3.3.04 (EP 2 794 651; DREX and file wrapper). Accordingly, the Board of Appeal had to investigate whether there was any legal basis for demanding an adaptation of the specification at all.

The Board took an approach similar to what I take from the TP, i.e. the «supported by the description» simply means:

[T]he subject-matter of the claim must be taken from the description, it being inadmissible to claim any subject-matter which is not described.

This must not be confused with the first requirement of clarity, in this Board’s view:

When assessing clarity, the description cannot be relied upon to resolve a clarity issue in a claim, nor can it give rise to any such isseue if the definition of the subject-matter in a claim is clear per se.

Accordingly, it is held (¶7):

Article 84 EPC cannot serve as a legal basis for the refusal.

The Board did not find any legal basis in R. 42(1) lit. c EPC (in the absence of a non-unity objection; ¶8) and R. 48(1) lit. c EPC (only pertaining to patent applications, not patents — opposed to R. 42 EPC; ¶9-12), either.

Accordingly, the Board allowed the appeal and remitted the case to the ED with an order to grant the patent — with an unamended description.

the aftermath of T 1989/18 — 3.3.04

To the best of my knowledge, one further Board of Appeal has explicitly adopted the approach of T 1989/18 — 3.3.04, i.e. in the matter T 1444/20 — 3.3.01 (¶2 et seqq.).

On the other hand, I am aware of four recent Board of Appeal decisions that dissent with T 1989/18 — 3.3.04. I will address them below.

T 1024/18 — 3.2.06

Decision T 1024/18 — 3.2.06 concurs with T 1989/18 — 3.3.04 in that the claims must be clear in themselves; criterion i) of Art. 84 EPC. However, with respect to the third criterion, this Board holds that «supported by the description» cannot mean support in only a part of the description, because this would be at odds with the wording «supported by the description» (apparently understood with an emphasis on the word ‘the’).

This is a somewhat circular reasoning, isn’t it? The claims are only supported by the description when they are supported throughout the description; otherwise, they are not supported(?).

What is more, the TP are clear in that a less restrictive understanding than «fully» supported by the description was intended by the legislator. Against this background, I am having a hard time to accept a reasoning according to which support by (only) «part» of the description is not sufficient (¶3.1.8). 

Further, the Board mentions that the provision (Art. 84) had been moved from the Implementing Regulations to the Convention itself, because of its importance for national infringement procedings; ¶3.1.9. The Board draws from this that also the requirement of «supported by the description» serves this purpose.

I cannot deduce this from the TP; see above. The TP refer to the importance of the provision, but they are silent about which criteria thereof were considered to be of so much importance for national infringement proceedings. In my view, there is no reason to assume all three criteria were equally meant. For instance, I fail to see that the legislator had conciseness of the claims in mind with respect to the outstanding importance in infringement litigation. In my experience, conciseness of a claim is no issue at all. So, why would one assume that «supported by the description» was meant to be of oustanding importance?

T 2293/18 — 3.5.02

This decision holds, with reference to T 409/91 (¶3.3-3.5), that «supported by the description» requires that the claimed subject-matter has a basis in the description, which is to make sure that the claims only extend to subject-matter which, after reading the description, are at the disposal of the skilled person; ¶3.3.5.

Further, with reference to T 659/93 (¶3.4), this decision holds that «supported by the description» is to assure that the scope corresponds with the actual contribution to the art, and that the claims can be worked over the entire scope; ¶3.3.5. .

All this is not really controversial. But does it help to answer the question?

The decision goes on to hold that «it follows» that claims and description must not contradict each other, as part of a single document:

I wonder: Why is this a necessary consequence? I feel that the claims may well be workable over their entire scope, and they may well correspond to the actual contribution to the art, without the need to perfectly match with the description («übereinstimmen»). In any event, I feel requiring a perfect match puts the bar at the wrong level: «Full» support was clearly not intended by the legislator.

T 0121/20 — 3.2.01

This decision concurs with the reasons of T 1024/18 — 3.2.06 (which I do not find very convincing; see above), without adding anything in substance; ¶10.2.

UPDATE 11 June 2022: Yet another decision of the same Board 3.2.01 has been published on 9 June 2022, i.e. T 1516/20. This decision, again, merely refers to and consents with T 1024/18 — 3.2.06, but does not add anything in substance; ¶5.

T 2766/17 — 3.2.02

This decision agrees with T 1989/18 in that the description cannot be relied upon to resolve a clarity issue in the claim, but it does not follow the a contrario reasoning:

The decision illustrates the unitary character of a patent with the example that terms may be given a special meaning in the description, i.e. that a patent specification can become its own dictionary. In conclusion, this decision holds that statements in the description contradicting the plain claim wording may cause doubts as to the intended meaning of this wording:

I am not convinced. Primacy of the claims is the overriding principle of any claim construction. If parts of the description really contradict the plain wording of the claim, I fail to see the clarity issue. These parts are irrelevant and can simply be ignored.

Practice under the PCT

The PCT International Search and Preliminary Examination Guidelines (PCT/GL/ISPE/11) are meant to reflect the practice under Art. 6 PCT, i.e. under the more restrictive wording «fully supported by the description». The following is noted therein:

Notably, not each and every inconsistency has to be removed even under Art. 6 PCT:

However, inconsistencies which do not cause doubt as to the meaning of the claims may be overlooked.

I feel the above examle in the PCT Guidelines is telling — because it illustrates how this practice will inevitably lead to undesired results. I cannot see how a semiconductor in one «embodiment» of the description could cause doubt as to the meaning of the plain wording «electronic tube» in a claim. A tube is a tube, not a semiconductor. Period. The disclosed (non-)embodiment is simply not literally covered by the claimed invention — and we all know what that means for a patentee when trying to assert infringement under the DoE. On the other hand, if this (non-)embodiment is deleted before grant in order to meet the «supported by the description» requirement, a semiconductor may easily be asserted as infringement under the DoE. The result is the exact opposite of legal certainty and serves no public interest at all.

Comparative study of national practices

WIPO has conducted a comparative study on  the relationship of the claims and the disclosure back in 2002; SCP/7/6.

The practice of the EPO is extensively reviewed, and summarized as follows:

No mentioning of amendments to the description at all. Essential features must be taken up in the claims, but that’s it. The same holds true for the other jurisdictions assessed.

In any event, no national practice in a major jurisdiction that I am aware of requires applicants to adapt the description, and in particular not in the way the EPO does. Against this background, I feel that it is somewhat far-fetched to assume that the PCT contracting states really intended to require substantial amendments to the description by way of Art. 6 PCT (and even less so under the less restrictive wording of Art. 84 EPC).

Yet another WIPO document gets it right, in my view. SCP/22/4 holds:

I would just leave it at this. No touching of the description is necessary towards this end.

Where are we going from here

Within a time frame of only a few months, we have seen six decisions on the issue of «supported by the description» and its implications under Art. 84 EPC. T 1989/18 — 3.3.04 cannot simply be ignored anymore since its approach is explicitly supported by yet another Board in T 1444/20 — 3.3.01. Four other Boards dissented. I feel it is only a matter of time until a Board decides to refer the issue to the Enlarged Board of Appeal; Art. 112(1) lit. a EPC. The sooner the better, to finally get things straight.

A referal by the President of the EPO under Art. 112(1) lit. b EPC is not to be expected, in my opinion.

/MW

T 1989/18 — 3.3.04 (HTML)

Chair: Bart CLAES
Member: Oskar LECHNER
Lukas BÜHLER (lm)

Decision of 16 December 2021:

DISSENTING WITH T 1989/18 — 3.3.04

T 1024/18 — 3.2.06 (HTML)

Chair: Michael HARRISON
Member: Martin HANNAM
Wilhelm UNGLER (lm)
Thomas ROSENBLATT
Claes ALMBERG (lm)

Decision of 1 March 2022:

T 2293/18 — 3.5.02 (HTML)

Chair: Richard LORD
Member: Claudia VASSOILLE
Anna BACCHIN (lm)

Decision of 31 March 2022:

T 0121/20 — 3.2.01 (HTML)

Chair: Giovanni PRICOLO
Member: Andrea WAGNER
Peter GUNTZ (lm)

Decision of 11 March 2022:

T 2766/17 — 3.2.02 (HTML)

Chair: Marco ALVAZZI DELFRATE
Member: David CECCARELLI
Christof SCHMIDT (lm)

Decision of 17 March 2022:

CONSENTING WITH T 1989/18 — 3.3.04 

T 1444/20 — 3.3.01 (HTML)

Chair: Albert LINDNER
Member: Regina HAUSS
Lukas BÜHLER (lm)

Decision of 28 April 2022:

BE ON THE KNOW

Enter your name and email address below to get notified of new posts by email.

Clarification on clarity

Case No. O2016_010 | Decision of 15 May 2019 | ‘Klarheitsprüfung bei Änderung der Patentansprüche’
Case No. O2016_011 | Decision of 15 May 2019 | ‘Klarheitsprüfung bei Änderung der Patentansprüche’

Reading time: 15 minutes

HEADNOTE in O2016_010

Art. 26, 27 PatA: Clarity on amendment of patent claims.

Lack of clarity is not a ground for invalidity. However, in order for a prayer for relief for limitation of claims in a patent nullity suit to be admissible, it must also be sufficiently determined. Therefore, the limitation of claims must be clearly formulated. The waiver of a granted independent claim constitutes a limitation of the patent, but this waiver cannot raise a question of clarity if, apart from the waiver of a granted independent claim, a mere reformulation of a granted dependent claim is made as an independent claim (¶34).

Loepfe logo

Loepfe had sued Uster Technologies AG for nullity of EP 2 347 250 (see EPO Register and Swissreg) and a divisional thereof, i.e. EP 2 352 018 (see EPO Register and Swissreg). The inventions are all about the capacitive testing of yarns or fabric, wherein the dielectric property of a capacitor arrangement is determined.

The case was split into two separate proceedings (O2016_010 for EP’250 and O2016_011 for EP’018). We have reported about the main hearing in both cases on this Blog here.

O2016_010 re EP’250

Uster logo

Uster did not defend the patent as granted but rather filed a main request (MR) and six auxiliary requests (AR1 to AR6) to maintain EP’250 in limited form. In response, Loepfe argued that all requests contained subject matter that went beyond the application as originally filed, and that all claims lacked an inventive step over several combinations of prior art documents. Novelty, however, was not at issue.

Added Matter

Loepfe alleged that several features of the MR were not disclosed in the application as originally filed. The FPC disagreed to large extent, except with regard to the feature of symmetric balancing without a reference capacitor. Briefly, the decision holds that the application as filed only disclosed symmetric balancing w a reference capacitor, and does not provide any teaching related to how symmetric balancing could be done w/o a reference capacitor. Thus, the MR failed because of added matter.

AR1 and AR2 failed for the very same reason.

AR3, however, had a reference capacitor included and could thus be considered further on the merits. Here is the structured feature analysis of AR3:


Claim 1 of AR3

In German language only; I’m sorry. Markup over claim 1 as initially granted (additions and deletions) for the changes made already in the MR; additional markup for AR3 in italic. Mere changes of the order of the features are not marked-up. Identifiers of the features are as used in the decision.

1A
Verfahren für den Symmetrieabgleich einer Vorrichtung (1)
1B
zur kapazitiven Untersuchung eines bewegten länglichen textilen Prüfgutes (9) wie Kardenband, Vorgarn, Garn oder Gewebe
1C mittels einer Kondensatoranordnung (21),
1E’
welche Vorrichtung (1) eine Auswerteschaltung (6) zur Auswertung mindestens einer elektrischen Messgrösse eines an einer die der Kondensatoranordnung (21) beinhaltenden Messschaltung (2) abgegriffenen elektrischen Signals,
1Ea
einen Referenzkondensator (22), welcher in Serie zur  Kondensatoranordnung (21) geschaltet ist,
1D’
mindestens einen Wechselsignalgenerator (3) zum Anlegen eines elektrischen Wechselsignals von zwei elektrischen Wechselspannungen mit entgegengesetzten Phasen an die Kondensatoranordnung (21) bzw. an den Referenzkondensator,
1Da’
wobei die Kondensatoranordnung (21) vom Wechselsignalgenerator (3) durch eine Filter- und/oder Verstärkerstufe (5) zur Filterung und/oder Verstärkung des vom Wechselsignalgenerator (3) erzeugten Wechselsignals derart abgekoppelt ist, dass sie Parameter des vom Wechselsignalgenerator (3) erzeugten Wechselsignals nicht beein- flusst,
1F
Abgleichmittel (4),
1G”
die in einem elektrischen Pfad zwischen dem Wechselsignalgenerator (3) und der Messschaltung (2) Filter- und/oder Verstärkerstufe (5) angeordnet sind und mittels derer mindestens ein Parameter des elektrischen Wechselsignals derart veränderbar ist,
1H
dass ein Ausgangssignal der Auswerteschaltung (6) bei definierten, konstanten Bedingungen einen bestimmten Wert, vorzugsweise Null, annimmt, und
1I
Steuermittel (7) zur Abgabe eines elektrischen Steuersignals an die Abgleichmittel (4), mittels dessen die Veränderung des mindestens einen Parameters steuerbar ist,
beinhaltet
1J
wobei die Kondensatoranordnung (21) ohne Prüfgut (9) im Wesentlichen zeitlich unverändert belassen wird,
1K’
ein elektrisches Wechselsignal von dem mindestens einen Wechselsignalgenerator (3) erzeugt und an die  Kondensatoranordnung (21) angelegt wird
1L’
ein elektrisches Ausgangssignal der Messschaltung (2) Kondensatoranordnung (21) abgegriffen wird,
1M’
mindestens eine elektrische Messgrösse des an der Messschaltung (2) Kondensatoranordnung (21) abgegriffenen elektrischen Ausgangssignals durch die Auswerteschaltung (6) ausgewertet wird,
1N”
mindestens ein Parameter des elektrischen Wechselsignals in dem elektrischen Pfad zwischen dem mindestens einen Wechselsignalgenerator (3) und der Messschaltung (2) Filter- und/oder Verstärkerstufe (5) derart durch die Abgleichmittel (4) verändert wird,
1O
dass ein Ausgangssignal der Auswertung bei definierten, konstanten Bedingungen einen bestimmten Wert, vorzugsweise Null, annimmt,
1P
die Veränderung des mindestens einen Parameters mit dem elektrischen Steuersignal durch die Steuermittel (7) gesteuert wird, und
1Q
das elektrische Steuersignal durch das Ausgangssignal beeinflusst wird.


Inventive Step of AR3

Plaintiff alleged a lack of inventive step over EP 1 124 134 (D2) in view of WO 01/31351 (D11), DE 195 35 177 (D5), US 4,843,879 (D1, referred to in EP’250, ¶[0007]), US 3,757,211 (D6), US 2007/0146019 (D4), a publication by Huang (D3) which is unfortunately not specified any further, and further in view of general knowledge.

In addition, plaintiff also alleged a lack of inventive step over D1 since the differentiating feature (arrangement of the means for balancing before the filter/amplifier) had no technical effect and could not render the claimed subject-matter inventive.

The FPC did not agree. In particular, the decision holds that the skilled person would not have considered D4, D11, D5, D6, or D3 to solve the objective technical problem which was defined as enhancing the quality of the measurement results. Note that D2 had already been cited in the patent in suit, as a result of which the objective technical problem was taken from the patent itself.

Finally, the FPC also rejected the argument that general knowledge would have led a skilled person to control the balancing means automatically. While the skilled person could arguably have done so, the decision holds that there was no teaching in D2 that would have led the skilled person to actually do it.

Consequently, the FPC concluded that AR3 was inventive over the prior art.

Clarity

An aspect of the decision that is of interest beyond the specific case is related to clarity. Plaintiff alleged that defendant’s requests for maintenance of the patent in limited form were unclear.

A Europen patent cannot be revoked for lack of clarity; the lists in Art. 138 EPC and Art. 26 PatA are closed. However, the decision holds that this must not be mixed up with requests in civil proceedings which must be clearly worded in order to be allowable. The decision holds that this is not only the case with prayers for injunctive relief (BGE 131 III 70), but also with requests for limitation of the patent in nullity proceedings. The decision goes on with a somewhat complicated derivation  with reference to BGE 92 II 280 (¶3a), 120 II 357 (¶2), 4C.108/1997 (¶3a), the corresponding practice at the EPO (G 3/14) and an analogy to Art. 97 PatR. I feel this was necessary since there is no explicit rule in the Swiss PatA that requires the amended claims to fulfil all requirements of the PatA (unlike e.g. Art. 101(3) lit. a EPC — “meet the requirements of this Convention”, what includes clarity, Art. 84 EPC).

Ein Rechtsbegehren, das einen […] unabhängigen Anspruch durch die Aufnahme eines […] abhängigen Anspruchs beschränkt, stellt keine materielle Einschränkung des erteilten abhängigen Anspruchs dar. Damit wird auf den erteilten unabhängigen Anspruch  verzichtet und der entsprechende abhängige erteilte Anspruch wird im eingeschränkten Patent als unabhängiger Anspruch weitergeführt. Der Verzicht auf den erteilten unabhängigen Anspruch bildet zwar eine Einschränkung des Patents gemäss Art. 27 Abs. 1 PatG. Dieser Verzicht kann jedoch keine Klarheitsfrage aufwerfen, denn die blosse Umformulierung des erteilten abhängigen Anspruches als unabhängiger Anspruch bildet keine weitere Einschränkung des Patents im Sinne von Art. 27 Abs. 1 PatG und kann entsprechend auch nicht auf Klarheit geprüft werden.

The bottom line is that mere combination of an independent claim with one or more dependent claims in nullity proceedings cannot be challenged with respect to clarity.


In the case at hand, the court did not see any problem re clarity. The plaintiff had basically objected to the term ‘parameter’ being unclear and that the limited claims would contradict the description. The former argument was rejected by the court because the term was already included in the claims as granted, while the latter was deemed resolved by a declaration according to Art. 97(2) PatR.

Costs

In view of the mixed outcome, the costs were split between the parties. The fact that the patent was limited by incorparation of a feature taken from the specification did not change anything in this respect since revocation of the patent had been requested in entirety.

The FPC did not follow defendant’s argument that costs incurred for the assisting patent attorney are no ‘necessary expenses’ (Art. 3 lit. a and Art. 9(2) CostR-PatC), on top of the costs for legal representation according to the tariff, if the patent attorney could have done the whole case on her/his own; Art. 29(1) PatCA. Even if the patent attorney could have run the case on his own, there is no obligation to do so. Complex legal issues may come up in the further course of the proceeding, and/or a counterclaim for infringement.

Aus der Tatsache, dass einer Partei die Möglichkeit gegeben wird, sich durch einen Patentanwalt in Nichtigkeitsprozessen vertreten zu lassen (Art. 29 PatGG),  kann weder eine Pflicht abgeleitet werden, keinen Rechtsanwalt beizuziehen, noch kann sie es rechtfertigen, wenn eine Partei von einem Rechtsanwalt vertreten wird, keine notwendigen Auslagen für den Patentanwalt mehr zuzusprechen.

Now, what is interesting is the split of costs awarded for legal representation on the one hand, and assistance of the patent attorney on the other hand. Even though the actual expenses for the patent attorney were not awarded in full, they were still awarded to an extent that is on the upper end of the tariff (CHF 44’841.20 requested, CHF 30’000,– awarded). However, compensation for legal representation was only considered on the lower end of the tariff according to Art. 4 CostR-PatC, based on a value in dispute of CHF 125’000,–.

The decision has not been appealed and has thus become final meanwhile.

O2016_011 re EP’018

Defendant filed a MR and five ARs to maintain the patent in limited form. With respect to the main request, plaintiff alleged that new matter was introduced and that the independent claim was not inventive.

Main Request: Added matter?

Plaintiff alleged that the newly introduced feature of a ‘reference capacitor different from the balancing means’ did not have sufficient basis in the application as originally filed, and that it amounts to a disclaimer.

The court did not agree that new matter was introduced. Rather, the reference capacitor and the balancing means were indeed separate entities in all embodiments of the patent. Therefore, the feature in question was directly and unambiguously derivable for the skilled person from the application as originally filed, and the main request did not contain added matter and the disclaimer argument was moot.

… but is it inventive?

No, it is not. The decision holds that the subject matter of the main request was obvious to the skilled person from EP 1 124 134 (D2) in view of the skilled person general knowledge. Plaintiff’s other arguments / combinations of prior art failed to render the subject-matter of the MR obvious.

Plan B

The FPC then moved on to AR1:


Claim 1 of AR1

In German language only; I’m sorry. Markup over claim 1 as initially granted (additions and deletions) for the changes made already in the MR; additional markup for AR1 in italic. 

1A’ Vorrichtung (1) zur Bestimmung mindestens einer dielektrischen Eigenschaft kapazitiven Untersuchung eines bewegten länglichen textilen Prüfgutes (9) wie Kardenband, Vorgarn, Garn oder Gewebe mittels
1B’ einer Kondensatoranordnung (21) mit zwei voneinander beabstandeten Platten, zwischen denen sich Luft befindet und zwischen die das
längliche textile Prüfgut (9) einführbar ist,
1C beinhaltend eine Auswerteschaltung (6) zur Auswertung mindestens
einer elektrischen Messgrösse eines an der Kondensatoranordnung
(21) abgegriffenen elektrischen Signals,
1D einen Referenzkondensator (22), welcher in Serie zur Kondensatoranordnung (21) geschaltet ist,
1E’ mindestens einen Wechselsignalgenerator (3) zum Anlegen von zwei
elektrischen Wechselspannungen mit entgegengesetzten Phasen an
die Kondensatoranordnung (21) bzw. an den Referenzkondensator
(22),
1Ea’ wobei die Kondensatoranordnung (21) vom Wechselsignalgenerator
(3) durch eine Filter- und/oder Verstärkerstufe (5) zur Filterung
und/oder Verstärkung des vom Wechselsignalgenerator (3) erzeugten
Wechselsignals derart abgekoppelt ist, dass sie Parameter des vom
Wechselsignalgenerator (3) erzeugten Wechselsignals nicht beeinflusst,
1F Abgleichmittel (4),
1G”’ die in einem elektrischen Pfad zwischen dem mindestens einen
Wechselsignalgenerator (3) und der Filter- und/oder Verstärkerstufe
(5) Kondensatoranordnung (21) angeordnet sind und mittels derer
mindestens ein Parameter des elektrischen Wechselsignals derart
veränderbar ist,
1H dass ein Ausgangssignal der Auswerteschaltung (6) bei definierten,
konstanten Bedingungen den Wert Null annimmt,
1I Steuermittel (7) zur Abgabe eines elektrischen Steuersignals an die
Abgleichmittel (4), mittels dessen die Veränderung des mindestens
einen Parameters steuerbar ist.


Contrary to plaintiff’s allegation, the court found that no new matter was introduced.

In terms of obviousness, AR1 was based on the MR, but more narrow in scope. Thus, any combination of prior art that did not render the MR obvious could consequently not render AR1 obvious. As such, the court only discussed obviousness over D2 in view of the skilled person’s general knowledge. Here, the court did rule that an inventive step was given.

EP ‘018 was thus maintained in limited form according to AR1.

Clarity and costs

No surprises here; the reasoning is essentially the same as in O2016_010, see above.

Like O2016_010, this decision has also not been appealed and has thus become final meanwhile.

Reported by Philippe KNÜSEL and Martin WILMING

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Case No. O2016_010 | Decision of 15 May 2019 | ‘Klarheitsprüfung bei Änderung der Patentansprüche’
Case No. O2016_011 | Decision of 15 May 2019 | ‘Klarheitsprüfung bei Änderung der Patentansprüche’

Gebr. Loepfe AG
./.
Uster Technologies AG

Panel of Judges:

  • Frank SCHNYDER
  • Dr. Tobias BREMI
  • Christoph MÜLLER

Judge-rapporteur:

  • Dr. Tobias BREMI

Court Clerk:

  • Susanne ANDERHALDEN

Representative(s) of Plaintiff:

  • Dr. Simon HOLZER (MLL)
  • Dr. Kilian SCHÄRLI (MLL)
  • Dr. Kurt SUTTER (Blum), assisting in patent matters

Representative(s) of Defendant:

  • Dr. Andri HESS (Homburger)
  • Dr. Pavel PLISKA (inhouse @ Uster Technologies)

CASE NO. O2016_010
EP’250 maintained as amended
Decision of: 15 May  2019
Fullscreen view (new tab)

EP 2 347 250 B1:

Fullscreen view (new tab)

CASE NO. O2016_011
EP’018 maintained as amended
Decision of: 15 May 2019
Fullscreen view (new tab)

EP 2 352 018 B1

Fullscreen view (new tab)

BE ON THE KNOW

Enter your name and email address below to get notified of new posts by email.