In this opposition appeal there were three different discussions that were all related to one single word in the first claim: "separate". The proprietor (Appellant) introduced that word in the claim of the discussed request, and, according to the opponent (Respondent), the word was not supported by the description, extended the protection of the patent, and was not clear. The support in the description was discussed on basis of two figures and the description of the figures. With respect to the extension of protection the Board discussed whether the product defined in the granted claims is different from the product that is defined by the claims of the main request of the Appeal. Further, the general meaning of the word "separate" was used to discuss the clarity objections of the opponent.
Because the outcome of the appeal proceedings, it seems that changing "..., separately molded side pieces..." into "..., separate, molded side pieces" makes at least an important difference.
In opposition the patent was revoked because there was no support for a range of "0.2mm to 0.8mm diameter for warp and weft yarns". The patent application as filed has support for: "warp yarns having a diameter in the range of 0.20 mm to 0.80 mm and weft yarns having a diameter in the range of 0.20 mm to 1.0 mm". Thus, the proprietor reduced the scope of protection by giving up the diameter range from 0.8mm to 1.0mm for the weft yarns.
During the Opposition procedure the proprietor used G 1/93 to argue that the scope of protection of features without a technical contribution may be reduced without violating Art. 123(2). The Opponent and the Opposition Division did not share that opinion.
An appeal was filed with several requests in which the proprietor tried several strategies to overcome the A.123(2) and (3) problem. In the main request a correction of an obvious error was requested (change 1.0 to 0.8mm). In the auxiliary requests several variations of (undisclosed) ranges / values were requested. The outcome of the appeal procedure is that the scope of protection is now reduced to "infinitely small".
The applicant appealed the refusal of the Examining Division due to an alleged non-compliance with Art.123(2) EPC. He filed an appeal, and argued compliance with Art.123(2) EPC in view of a presumed interpretation of how to apply G 2/10 in a newly added paragraph in the November 2014 edition of Guidelines. Did the gold standard for the fundamental test under Article 123(2) EPC change?
