Zusammenfassung von Article 123(2) EPC für die Entscheidung T0405/24 vom 30.09.2025

In T 405/24 the board agreed with the opposition division and the respondents that granted claim 1 contained added subject-matter. Feature 1.7 bore no limitation in respect of the type of "filtered packets" being "routed" to the "proxy system". The appellant argued that "routing filtered packets to a proxy system" in the context of claim 1 was to be broadly construed, i.e. it should not be narrowly interpreted as "network-layer routing" only. Rather, it should include any kind of "sending", "forwarding" or "logging". The unit "RG1" in step #19 of Fig. 3B at the very least "forwarded" to the proxy device "PD1" those packets (comprising encrypted data) which were not "dropped" but "logged". Thus, the skilled person in the field of data communications would have understood that such "forwarding" was providing a basis for the "routing" action of feature 1.7. According to the appellant, if multiple technically sensible interpretations of a certain claim feature existed, the one which was supported by the patent description should prevail. The board was not persuaded by the appellant’s argument. First, the board considered that even if the Order of G 1/24 (which related to assessing compliance with Art. 52 to 57 EPC only) could be extrapolated to the assessment of compliance with Art. 123(2) EPC, there was no indication in G 1/24 that "consulting" or "referring to" the description and drawings could translate into adopting a claim interpretation which ensured that the disputed feature was originally disclosed and thus necessarily fulfilled Art. 123(2) EPC. Such an approach, which according to the board inherently assumed that there may be only one "correct" interpretation of a claim feature, namely the one derivable from the original description as its intended meaning, would not lead to an objective assessment of compliance with Art. 123(2) EPC. The board did not follow the approach of T 367/20 (for the event of "mutually exclusive" interpretations) nor T 2048/22 (claim ambiguities). Rather, the board relied on the body of case law which holds that all technically reasonable interpretations of a disputed claim feature are to be taken into account when assessing compliance with Art. 123(2) EPC (see e.g. T 945/20, T 470/21, T 2034/21, T 193/22). Second, even if, for the sake of argument, the "forwarding" of logged packets (comprising encrypted data) to the proxy device "PD1" in step #19 constituted a specific instance of the more general "routing filtered packets to a proxy system", this would still fail to justify the claimed generalisation, which also encompassed, among other things, network-layer routing of filtered packets not being necessarily logged. Thus, the board concluded that the ground for opposition under Art. 100(c) EPC in conjunction with Art. 123(2) EPC prejudiced the maintenance of the patent as granted. The same objections applied to auxiliary requests 1 to 7 and 9 to 15. Auxiliary requests 8 and 2b were not admitted into the appeal proceedings. Since there were no allowable claim requests on file, the appeal was dismissed.