T 1989/18 - As a general rule, not required to bring the description in line with (amended) claims intended for grant
In the present case, the examining division found the set of amended claims of the main request to be allowable, but nevertheless it held that the amendments to the description adapted to those claims (submitted with the same letter) did not comply with the requirements of Article 84 EPC, in particular because they related to subject-matter which was broader than the subject-matter of independent claim 17 of the request, and refused the European patent application for that reason. The Board carefully assessed the applicability of Art. 84 EPC as well as of Rule 42(1)(c) and Rule 48(1)(c) EPC as possible legal basis requiring adaptation of the description, and concluded that such basis does not exist (except possible in the case of non-unity). The Board also argued why it distinguished from earlier decisions (some of whuch being cited in the Guidelines in support of such alleged requirement).
This decision T 1989/18 (Adaptation of the description/HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE) of 16.12.2021 (pdf) has European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2021:T198918.20211216. The file wrapper can be found here. Figure: citation from "05.03.2018 Grounds for the decision (Annex)" to the 05.03.2018 Decision to refuse the application (Examining Division)) obtained from the online EP register.
The Guidelines of March 2022 have not yet been amended in view of this decision.
ReplyDeleteMaybe because it was too late to incorporate them?
It will require significant changes to F-IV, 4.3 "Inconsistencies" and F-IV 4.4 "General statements, "spirit of the invention", claim-like clauses".
T 2360/12 () of 26.4.2017 did also not require that the applicant would label any embodiments that were no longer covered by the amended claims as "embodiments not covered by the claimed invention". Rather, it was satisfied that they are referred to as "embodiments" or as "cathether system" as long as they are not referred to as "embodiments according to the invention".
ReplyDelete"5.5 Conformity of the description with the amended claims - Rule 42(1)(c) EPC
The appellant argued that several passages in the description were not in conformity with the claims as amended according to Auxiliary Request A.
The Board notes that amended paragraph [0010] clearly states that the invention is defined in claim 1. No other passages of the description contradict this statement. More particularly, paragraph [0015] describing a catheter system including two elements does not preclude the catheter system according to the invention from including a further, third element. Similarly, nowhere is it stated that the blunt dissection catheter mentioned in paragraph [0097] and the embodiments referred to in the paragraphs cited by the appellant are in accordance with the claimed invention. Paragraph [0133], be it vague or not, does not contain any express statement indicating that the invention should be different from the subject-matter of claim 1 of Auxiliary Request A."
https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t122360eu1.html
Interesting is also T 1024/18 citing this decision and arguing against it.
ReplyDeleteThe EPO News below suggests that there is a wide consensus among all stakeholders as to the strict EPO practice on requiring adaptation of the description to the amended claims in the way explained in the 2022 edition of the Guidelines for Examination. However, there is quite some opposition among the profession and not all Boards agree. It will be interesting to see how "The findings from this workshop will be used to revise the relevant sections of the Guidelines, for example, to provide a better definition of what should be considered inconsistent, conflicting or contradictory or to insert illustrative examples."
ReplyDeleteEPO News 7.7.2022
EPO practice confirmed on adaptation of description
(https://www.epo.org/news-events/news/2022/20220707.html)
A recent expert workshop held on 23 June 2022 has confirmed the EPO practice whereby the description in a patent application must be made consistent with its amended claims (in accordance with Article 84 EPC) to ensure legal certainty and avoid the public being presented with information that conflicts with the wording of the claims. This was the conclusion reached by user representatives, members of the Boards of Appeal and national judges as well as experienced EPO examiners and lawyers who met to discuss the legal and practical aspects of adaptation of the description. The practice explained in the 2022 edition of the Guidelines for Examination was compared against the recent case law. Parallel breakout sessions were held on challenges and best practices when adapting the description in different technical areas.
Article 84 EPC requires that the claims be supported by the description. This means that any inconsistencies between the claims and those parts of the description disclosing ways to carry out the invention need to be removed, as expressed in the 2022 decisions T 1024/18, T 121/20, T 2293/18, T 2766/17 and T 1516/20.
This understanding of Article 84 EPC is in line with the standard of claim interpretation for national proceedings enshrined in Article 69(1) EPC, which requires that the description also be taken into account when interpreting the claims. Diverging interpretations of the scope of the claims can be avoided if inconsistent information contained in the description or drawings is already removed in the proceedings before the EPO. Thus, the support requirement of Article 84 EPC also serves the aim of ensuring legal certainty for national post-grant proceedings.
The findings from this workshop will be used to revise the relevant sections of the Guidelines, for example, to provide a better definition of what should be considered inconsistent, conflicting or contradictory or to insert illustrative examples. The revised text will be prepared in consultation with the SACEPO Working Party on the Guidelines.
The EPO will continue to monitor developments in the case law on adaptation of the description as well as on the sub-topic of claim-like clauses.
Further information:
Article 84 EPC
Article 69(1) EPC
Guidelines for Examination in the EPO, F-IV, 4.3
Case law of the Boards of Appeal
Standing Advisory Committee before the European Patent Office (SACEPO)