In case at problems the goal of the development a€“ specifically increasing the selectivity to TCS a€“ had been just achieved by the addition of chosen quantities of chromium to silicon and therefore this feature had not been “closely about additional faculties of the employed instance and pertains right and unambiguously to your more general framework” as required in T . The present decision has also been in accordance with T . They observed your choosing regarding the appreciate 550 ppm from employed sample 3 is therefore plainly acceptable in the case at problem, making use of the result your needs of artwork. 123(2) EPC comprise satisfied.
1.3 Technical contribution a€“ addition or deletion of an attribute
In T the panel emphasised the standards wherein an amendment should be directly and unambiguously derivable, making use of usual general facts, and observed objectively and in accordance with the go out of processing, from total regarding the application as filed, stays a pre-requisite for judging any modification according to the dependence on Art. 123(2) EPC. Therefore, the “relevance”, therefore, in the technical info is maybe not worth focusing on for deciding upon the problem of Art. 123(2) EPC. In the case at issue it could in addition not accepted because of the panel that whenever a talented individual applied their usual basic understanding, he’d after that arrive at the combination of features in state 11 of reliable demand 2.
Nothing were filed of the appellant (manager) to guide this argument, nor ended up being these suggestions derivable from the program as registered. The appellant’s (manager’s) discussion that a skilled people would realise just what elements happened to be technically strongly related to the creation when adding certain more architectural functions inside declare got totally personal.
It hence implemented your introduction into claim 11 of both very first and second attributes led to the competent people getting offered a brand new mix of properties (in other words. newer technical ideas) that he wouldn’t normally obtain immediately and unambiguously, making use of common general expertise, through http://www.datingmentor.org/bumble-vs-coffee-meets-bagel/ the program as registered. Declare 11 thus contravened Art. 123(2) EPC and additional request 2 got consequently perhaps not permitted.
1.4 Disclaimers
The Enlarged panel in grams 2/10 (OJ EPO 2012, 376) answered the concerns referred to they by interlocutory , 256) the following:
1a. an amendment to a declare by introduction of a disclaimer disclaiming from it subject-matter revealed in program as recorded infringes ways. 123(2) EPC in the event the subject-matter staying when you look at the claim after the introduction on the disclaimer just isn’t, whether it is clearly or implicitly, immediately and unambiguously disclosed towards skilled person using usual general insights, when you look at the application as submitted.
1b. Determining if that is the situation need a technical evaluation with the as a whole technical conditions on the individual instance into consideration, taking into consideration the character and degree associated with disclosure for the program as filed, the character and degree regarding the disclaimed subject-matter and its relationship because of the subject-matter staying for the declare following modification.
Circumstances T connected with an undisclosed disclaimer. Decision G 2/10 ended up being thus, prima-facie, not interested in equivalent circumstances, so it is questioned because of the board whether that decision had been applicable after all into the case earlier.
They concluded, after detail by detail thought, that examination of G 2/10 (see G 2/10, parts 1a of the purchase, tips 4.5.1 and 4.5.2 of the Reasons) furthermore pertains to a modification including an undisclosed disclaimer by way of which a state was made brand new over a European patent program relating to ways. 54(3) EPC. The examination of the admissibility of amendment for compliance with Art. 123(2) EPC needs to be generated independently for all the disclaimer by itself and for the subject-matter leftover in the declare (read point 4. of the Reasons).