1. Artikel 123 (2) EPÜ – Erweiterung des Gegenstands
1.1. Allgemeine Grundsätze
Gemäß Art. 123 (2) EPÜ dürfen die europäische Patentanmeldung und das europäische Patent nicht in der Weise geändert werden, dass ihr Gegenstand über den Inhalt der Anmeldung in der ursprünglich eingereichten Fassung hinausgeht. Im Zuge der Revision des EPÜ wurde der Wortlaut des Art. 123 (2) EPÜ lediglich redaktionell angepasst.
Das Konzept des "Inhalts der Anmeldung in der ursprünglich eingereichten Fassung" bezieht sich auf die Teile der Patentanmeldung, die für die Offenbarung der Erfindung maßgebend sind, nämlich die Beschreibung, die Ansprüche und die Zeichnungen (G 3/89, ABl. 1993, 117, und G 11/91, ABl. 1993, 125). S. unten in diesem Kapitel II.E.1.2. "Inhalt der Anmeldung in der ursprünglich eingereichten Fassung: Teile der Anmeldung, die für die Offenbarung der Erfindung maßgebend sind".
Art. 123 (2) EPÜ liegt der Gedanke zugrunde, dass es einem Anmelder nicht gestattet ist, seine Position durch Hinzufügung von in der ursprünglichen Anmeldung nicht offenbarten Gegenständen zu verbessern, weil ihm dies zu einem ungerechtfertigten Vorteil verhülfe und der Rechtssicherheit für Dritte, die sich auf den Inhalt der ursprünglichen Anmeldung verlassen, abträglich sein könnte (s. G 1/93, ABl. 1994, 541); andernfalls könnte es sein, dass die Öffentlichkeit später mit Ansprüchen konfrontiert wird, die über das hinausgehen, was in der Anmeldung in der eingereichten und veröffentlichten Fassung offenbart war (T 740/91 und T 1227/10). Die Öffentlichkeit darf nicht mit einem Schutzbereich konfrontiert sein, den sich ein Fachmann nach Durchsicht der gesamten technischen Offenbarung der ursprünglich eingereichten Patentanmeldung nicht hätte erschließen können (T 157/90, s. auch T 187/91 und T 2327/18, in der G 2/10 (ABl. 2012, 376, Nr. 4.5.5 der Gründe) angeführt wird).
Als "Goldstandard" (G 2/10, ABl. 2012, 376) für die Beurteilung, ob eine Änderung mit Art. 123 (2) EPÜ in Einklang steht, gilt: Jede Änderung an den die Offenbarung betreffenden Teilen einer europäischen Patentanmeldung oder eines europäischen Patents (der Beschreibung, der Patentansprüche und der Zeichnungen) unterliegt dem in Art. 123 (2) EPÜ statuierten zwingenden Erweiterungsverbot und darf daher unabhängig vom Kontext der vorgenommenen Änderung nur im Rahmen dessen erfolgen, was der Fachmann der Gesamtheit dieser Unterlagen in ihrer ursprünglich eingereichten Fassung unter Heranziehung des allgemeinen Fachwissens – objektiv und bezogen auf den Anmeldetag – unmittelbar und eindeutig entnehmen kann (G 3/89, ABl. 1993,117; G 11/91, ABl. 1993, 125). Die Änderung darf nicht dazu führen, dass der Fachmann neue technische Informationen erhält (G 2/10; s. aber G 1/16 zu nicht offenbarten Disclaimern). S. dazu ausführlich unten in diesem Kapitel II.E.1.3. "Maßstab für die Beurteilung der Einhaltung von Artikel 123 (2) EPÜ"; zu Einzelheiten zu G 1/16, ABl. 2018, A70, s. unten Kapitel II.E.1.7. "Disclaimer".
Art. 123 (2) EPÜ findet Anwendung auf alle Änderungen der Patentanmeldung oder des Patents. Dazu gehören auch Berichtigungen der Beschreibung, der Ansprüche oder der Zeichnungen gemäß R. 139 Satz 2 EPÜ (s. dazu ausführlich in diesem Kapitel II.E.4. "Berichtigung von Fehlern in der Beschreibung, den Ansprüchen oder den Zeichnungen – Regel 139 EPÜ").
Die Große Beschwerdekammer betonte die Wichtigkeit eines einheitlichen Offenbarungskonzepts (unter Verweis auf Art. 54, 87 und 123 EPÜ; s. G 2/10, ABl. 2012, 376, Nr. 4.6 der Gründe mit Hinweis auf G 1/03, ABl. 2004, 413; s. auch G 1/15, ABl. 2017, A82, unter Verweis auf G 2/98, ABl. 2001, 413). S. auch z. B. T 330/14.
Bei Teilanmeldungen sind in Bezug auf die Frage, ob der Gegenstand über den Inhalt der früheren Anmeldung in der ursprünglich eingereichten Fassung hinausgeht, dieselben Grundsätze anzuwenden (G 1/05 date: 2007-06-28, ABl. 2008, 271, Nr. 5.1 der Gründe). Entscheidungen zu solchen Fällen werden daher ebenfalls in diesem Kapitel behandelt.
Dieselben Grundsätze gelten auch für den Einspruchsgrund nach Art. 100 c) EPÜ.
Der Einspruchsgrund nach Art. 100 c) EPÜ und das entsprechende Erfordernis von Art. 123 (2) EPÜ im Hinblick auf Änderungen, die im Einspruchs- und im Einspruchsbeschwerdeverfahren am Patent vorgenommen werden, sind für die Entscheidung, ob ein Patent aufrechterhalten werden kann, von derselben grundlegenden Bedeutung wie andere Erfordernisse, z. B. Neuheit, erfinderische Tätigkeit und ausreichende Offenbarung. Im Übrigen ist eine Erweiterung im Sinne des Art. 123 (2) EPÜ nicht eine Frage der "Form" des Patents, die unter die Rubrik "Formerfordernisse" fallen würde, sondern eine Sachfrage (T 2171/14).
- T 1054/22
Zusammenfassung
In T 1054/22 the examining division had concluded that claim 1 of the main request did not fulfil requirements of Art. 123(2) or 76(1) EPC, among other things, and it refused the patent application.
In its submissions on appeal, the applicant had argued that applying the criteria of G 1/93 (point 16 of the Reasons), the amendments did not result in an unwarranted advantage. Amended claim 1 of the main request was based on the earlier application as filed. This applied in particular to the amendments concerning the omega-6 to omega-3 ratio of 4:1 or greater and the concentration of omega-6 fatty acids (4-75% by weight of total lipids) and omega-3 fatty acids (0.1-30% by weight of total lipids).
The board dismissed the appeal. It explained that determining whether an amendment complied with the requirements of Art. 123(2) and 76(1) EPC was assessed using the "gold standard". This term was coined in G 2/10, in which the jurisprudence developed by the Enlarged Board in opinion G 3/89 and decision G 11/91 was confirmed.
The board explained that G 1/93 primarily concerned a case in which a granted claim could not be maintained unamended in opposition proceedings because the claim was found to contravene Art. 123(2) EPC. The examining division had allowed an amendment that should not have been allowed. As explained in G 2/10 (point 4.3 of the Reasons, last paragraph), G 1/93 was not intended to modify the "gold standard".
According to G 1/93, the purpose of Art. 123(2) EPC (and Art. 76(1) EPC) was to prevent an applicant from gaining an unwarranted advantage by obtaining patent protection for something it had not properly disclosed on the date of filing of the application. An added feature limiting the scope of the claim may still contravene Art. 123(2) EPC. An example of this, explicitly mentioned in G 1/93, is a limiting feature that creates an inventive selection not disclosed in the application as filed or otherwise derivable therefrom.
In the case in hand, value ranges had been added to claim 1 of the main request, in features a), (i) and (ii). The question was whether the skilled person would have derived these amendments directly and unambiguously, using common general knowledge, from the entirety of the earlier application as filed. What had to be examined was not only whether there was a basis for each of the features added by the amendments but also whether the skilled person would have derived the combination of features a), (i) and (ii), and that combination of features alone, from the earlier application as filed.
The board concluded that no basis could be found in the earlier application as filed for the combination of the concentration of omega-6 fatty acids of 4-75% by weight of total lipids and omega-3 fatty acids of 0.1-30% by weight of total lipids (feature (i) of claim 1 of the main request). As to the ratio (feature a) of claim 1 of the main request), there was no basis in the earlier application as filed for an open-ended ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acids of 4:1 or greater. Thus, claim 1 of the main request contravened Art. 76(1) EPC.
- T 2103/22
Zusammenfassung
In T 2103/22 the board, in order to assess compliance with the requirements of Art. 123(2) EPC, had to first determine the subject-matter effectively defined by claim 1 of the main request. In particular, the board interpreted the meaning of the following terms as well as the meaning of their combination:
a) "said polyester resin is a blended polyester resin which is a blend of a lowly crystalline polyester resin and a highly crystalline polyester resin at a weight ratio of 90:10 to 10:90 (…)"
b) "a layer of a polyester resin which comprises an ethylene terephthalate unit formed on at least one surface of the metal sheet".
The respondent (opponent) adhered to the conclusion of the opposition division which had been reached considering that "is" in term a) was to be read as "comprises", which meant that any other component different from the ones specifically mentioned in said claim 1 could be present in the blended polyester resin. The board disagreed and stated that, although it was correct that the normal rule of claim construction was that the terms used in a claim should be given their broadest technically sensible meaning, the literal reading of this passage defined that "said polyester resin" consisted of the lowly crystalline and highly crystalline polyester resins further defined in claim 1 of the main request, in the given weight ratio. In that regard, the board noted that, according to established case law (Case Law of the Boards of Appeal, 10th ed. 2022, II.A.6.2), the term "consists of" meant that the definition of "said polyester resin" was given in a "closed" manner, i.e. it excluded the presence of any other components other than the ones specifically defined (in the case at issue the lowly and highly crystalline polyester resins).
On b), the board found that the term "a layer of a polyester resin" defined, according to its literal reading, that the polyester therein mentioned, i.e. "which comprises an ethylene terephthalate unit", was the main component of the layer. However, this wording neither imposed that the polyester resin was the sole component of the layer, nor that it was the sole resin possibly present in the layer. The board further held that the reference to "unit" in that passage made it clear that the term "which" made reference to the polyester resin and not to the layer. This, in the board's view, would also be the logical reading of the claim made by the skilled person, considering that the term "which" usually makes reference to the word directly preceding it.
As the subject-matter of claim 1 of the main request was defined by the combination of terms a) and b), the board also determined the meaning of the combination of these two terms. It held that the polyester resin specified in the term "a layer of a polyester resin" was identical to the "said polyester resin" further defined in claim 1, i.e. it consisted of a blend of only the lowly and highly crystalline polyester resins.
Taking into account the further definitions of the lowly and highly crystalline polyester resins in claim 1, the board concluded that both of them were "a polyester resin that comprises an ethylene terephthalate unit". Therefore, the term "which comprises an ethylene terephthalate unit" of claim 1 of the main request was in fact redundant (i.e. not further limiting). Contrary to the view of the opposition division, the definitions of the highly and the lowly crystalline polyester resins further imposed that said terephthalate unit had to be present in majority since, otherwise, the resin would not be a "polyethylene terephthalate" anymore.
To determine whether the requirements of Art. 123(2) EPC were met, the board assessed if the deletion of the term "chiefly" from claim 1 of the application as filed resulted in added-matter. It saw no reason to deviate from the literal sense of the term "chiefly", which was that the polyester resin of the layer so defined should principally comprise an ethylene terephthalate unit not as the sole component but as the most important component of the polyester.
According to the board, adopting for the relevant passages of the application as filed the same reading as the one outlined for the corresponding passages of claim 1 of the main request, the term "which chiefly comprises an ethylene terephthalate unit" could only be held to be redundant (i.e. not further limiting) in view of the other features defining the valid support in the application as filed for the claimed subject-matter. Therefore, the presence or not in claim 1 of the main request of the terms "which chiefly comprises an ethylene terephthalate unit" or "chiefly" contained therein, did not lead to added-matter pursuant to Art. 123(2) EPC.