Incomplete and deficient reasoning 

In T 856/91, the contested decision referred to the knowledge of prominent skilled persons and cited "a statement by a well-known expert" but contained no information enabling the reader to infer who these persons were or exactly what they had said. This did not contravene R. 68(2) EPC 1973; it was sufficient for a decision to be reasoned in some way, even if the reasoning was incomplete and deficient. Following T 856/91, the board in T 1231/03 found that the material defects in the opposition division's decision which the appellant had cited (incoherent line of argument, inaccurate formulation of the technical problem and allegedly erroneous assessments) could not constitute a breach of R. 68(2) EPC 1973. In T 1747/06 the board distinguished the case before it from that in T 856/91 (see point 4.2.3 b) below).

See point 4.2.3 a) below for examples of cases where incomplete reasoning was nonetheless found sufficient within the meaning of R. 111(2) EPC.

Quick Navigation