tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990057754240336385.post6845169718529876002..comments2024-02-27T09:18:36.160+01:00Comments on DeltaPatents Case Law blog: T 623/13 - Deficient in clarityDeltaPatentshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07830354704918972593noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990057754240336385.post-10123546798011327412017-01-07T19:33:16.821+01:002017-01-07T19:33:16.821+01:00Those arguments rely on examples in the descriptio...Those arguments rely on examples in the description. The board has already stated that a "clarity deficiency in the claim wording cannot be rectified by the fact that the description could possibly help the reader to understand the technical subject-matter which the claim was intended to define".<br /><br />So the appellant's argument that the claimed invention can be understood after studying the description may be completely correct, but it misses the point of the objection. The appellant should have amended the claim with the help of the clarifying passages.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990057754240336385.post-39436912247319646532017-01-06T14:37:57.891+01:002017-01-06T14:37:57.891+01:00While I cannot judge whether the decision is right...While I cannot judge whether the decision is right or wrong, I find that the reasons are quite poor, e.g. point 1.2.2 appears to be a quick dismissal of at least on first sight quite substantial arguments in support of clarity. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com