Zusammenfassung von EPC2000 Art 123(2) für die Entscheidung T0324/21 vom 06.02.2024

In T 324/21 the board found that the subject-matter of claim 1 of the main request extended beyond the content of the application as filed due to an unallowable intermediate generalisation, contrary to the requirements of Art. 123(2) EPC. Amended claim 1 of the main request comprised some of the features illustrated in schematic Figures 7 and 8 as well as the additional features (M) and (N) originally disclosed only in the description of the detailed embodiments of Figures 2 to 6 in paragraphs [0035] and [0036] of the application as filed. Features (M) and (N) had equivalent meanings. The board explained that the feature (M)/(N) was mentioned in the context of the mode of action of the structure of the very special arrangement of Figures 2 to 5. This effect and function was only achieved for the special relative dimensions shown in Figures 2 to 5 and not for any arbitrary structure. The feature (M)/(N) was thus very strongly embedded in the specific embodiments of Figures 2 to 6 and could not be transferred in its general and broad meaning to the schematic and generalised representation of Figures 7 and 8 without resulting in a generalisation, which was not disclosed in the application as filed. On the other hand, despite the more generalised and simplified representation, the schematic drawings of Figures 7 and 8 still contained certain specific features in relation to the relative sizes and (rectangular) shapes of several components and their relative arrangements which were not reflected in feature (M)/(N). The description of a drawing may be inextricably linked to the specific disclosure of this drawing. If a feature in the description of the drawing was extracted from the very specific context of the drawing in order to be included in a claim, the specific disclosure of the drawing had to be taken into account. If there was no literal support for this specific disclosure in the application as filed which could be used to supplement the feature used to amend the claim, it may not be possible to avoid an unallowable intermediate generalisation. This could in particular occur if a feature from a specific and detailed embodiment was included in the context of a schematic drawing. Therefore, the board considered that an unallowable intermediate generalisation occurred by including certain text passages from paragraphs [0035] and [0036] of the detailed embodiments of Figures 2 to 6 in the context of the description of schematic Figures 7 and 8, which in turn was inseparably linked to the specific disclosure of Figures 7 and 8.