Quick Navigation
In T 188/83 (OJ 1984, 555) the board made it clear that the range was not rendered novel by the fact that the values calculated from the examples described in a citation were excepted by means of a disclaimer if these values could not be regarded as individual.
In T 170/87 (OJ 1989, 441) the board established that a disclaimer could render new an inventive teaching which overlapped the state of the art, but could not impart inventive step to a teaching which was obvious (see also T 857/91 and T 710/92). In T 597/92 (OJ 1996, 135) the board confirmed this, stating that there was no basis in the EPC 1973 for the substantiation of inventive step by way of a disclaimer (see also T 653/92).
The Enlarged Board of Appeal, too, was at pains to point out in G 1/03 and G 2/03 that an undisclosed disclaimer which is or becomes relevant to the assessment of inventive step or sufficient disclosure constitutes an extension which is inadmissible under Art. 123(2) EPC 1973 (see also T 968/00 and T 703/02).
It was only in the case of an "undisclosed" disclaimer that the assessment of inventive step must be carried out without taking account of the said disclaimer (T 1028/02).
In T 134/00 the claim at issue related to a fuel oil composition consisting of a middle distillate fuel oil and an additive composition. It required the additive composition to comprise at least the components of given types (i) and (ii), but it could also comprise other additive components. The claim also contained a disclaimer excluding a specific combination only as component (i) and not from the total fuel composition. The board therefore concluded that the disclaimer did not exclude the presence of the two specified components in the total fuel composition.