1. Grundlegende Prinzipien
1.4. Prüfung der Erfordernisse von Artikel 84 EPÜ in Einspruchs- und Einspruchsbeschwerdeverfahren
Artikel 84 EPÜ ist kein Einspruchsgrund. Werden im Einspruchsverfahren an einem Patent sachliche Änderungen vorgenommen, so muss jedoch geprüft werden, ob es dadurch zu einem Verstoß gegen ein Erfordernis des EPÜ einschließlich des Art. 84 EPÜ kommt (T 301/87, ABl. 1990, 335). In G 3/14 analysierte die Große Beschwerdekammer, ob und, wenn ja, inwieweit die Erfordernisse des Art. 84 EPÜ im Einspruchs- und Einspruchsbeschwerdeverfahren geprüft werden können, insbesondere wenn der geänderte Anspruch eine bloße Kombination aus einem erteilten unabhängigen Anspruch und erteilten abhängigen Ansprüchen bzw. Elementen dieser Ansprüche ist. Die Große Beschwerdekammer schloss sich T 301/87 an und entschied, dass die Ansprüche für die Zwecke des Art. 101 (3) EPÜ nur auf die Erfordernisse des Art. 84 EPÜ geprüft werden können, sofern – und dann auch nur soweit – diese Änderung einen Verstoß gegen Art. 84 EPÜ herbeiführt. G 3/14 wurde z. B. angewandt in T 1977/13, T 1905/13, T 565/11, T 248/13, T 1287/14, T 2311/15 und T 2321/15, T 1221/19 (Klarheit der angepassten Beschreibung). In G 2/19 (ABl. 2020, A87) stimmte die Große Beschwerdekammer mit den Feststellungen in G 3/14 überein und befand, dass sie konterkariert würden, wenn eine außerordentliche Beschwerdeberechtigung dafür eingeräumt würde, die Unklarheit erteilter Ansprüche zur Überprüfung durch die Kammer zu stellen. S. auch Kapitel IV.C.5.2.2 "Umfang der Befugnis zur Prüfung geänderter Ansprüche auf ihre Vereinbarkeit mit Artikel 84 EPÜ".
- T 1096/23
In T 1096/23 opponent 1 (appellant) raised among other things a clarity objection against auxiliary request 2. In this request, features of granted claim 6, which had originally been disclosed only as a dependent method claim, had been included in the independent apparatus claim 11. Opponent 1 submitted that clarity of these features had to be assessed, since G 3/14 did not apply when the category of the (dependent) claim was changed. As there was no disclosure of an apparatus which was configured to carry out these method steps, it was unclear how the method steps were implemented in the apparatus. Therefore, the subject-matter of independent apparatus claim 11 did not meet the requirements of Art. 84 EPC.
The board agreed with the patent proprietor (appellant) that according to G 3/14, when "complete dependent claims" have been added to the corresponding independent claim, the patent must not be examined for compliance with the requirements of Art. 84 EPC. But the board agreed with the reasoning of opponent 1 that this did not apply in the present case to the implementation of the method of the dependent method claim in the apparatus defined in claim 11. However, when a complete granted dependent claim is incorporated into an independent claim of another category (here: method step -> method step carried out by an apparatus), then only the amendments related to the change of category can be examined for clarity under G 3/14.
The board held that in the case of a sub-step of a method, which was (implicitly) executed in a computer program, it made no difference for the purposes of clarity whether this method step was part of a (computer-implemented) method or was implemented in computational means in an apparatus claim, so that no ambiguity could arise. Consequently, adding the features of the original dependent method claim 6 to the wording of apparatus claim 11 did not result in any ambiguity for the skilled person. Claim 11 of auxiliary request 2 met the requirements of Art. 84 EPC.
- T 0866/24
In T 866/24, during the oral proceedings before the board, the opponent (respondent) submitted that the unclear features underlying the amendments made to claim 1, which were based on the patent description, were building up on corresponding unclear formulations taken from dependent claim 6 as granted. Raising an objection under Art. 84 EPC against unclear features stemming from granted dependent claims should, in the opponent’s view, be admissible under such circumstances.
The board agreed, in principle, with the opponent's concerns. According to the board’s perception, there was a recent tendency to examine dependent claims less and less with respect to clarity in examination proceedings despite the fact that their full examination under Art. 84 EPC was not considered "unrealistic" in G 3/14, point 32 of the Reasons. Such a full examination was even expressly encouraged by the Enlarged Board in G 1/24, point 20 of the Reasons (i.e. highlighting "the importance of the examining division carrying out a high quality examination of whether a claim fulfils the clarity requirements of Article 84 EPC"). The board noted that the justification for such leniency may be found in the assumption that the protection conferred by a granted patent is defined only by the independent claims. Where dependent claims are subsequently added to an independent claim in the course of opposition proceedings, opponents are ultimately faced with unclear claim features which, as in the present case, were deemed to have been examined for clarity, although de facto they had not been. Nonetheless, they could not be objected to under Art. 84 EPC due to the conclusions of G 3/14.
The board observed that this result was unsatisfactory, as an independent claim with unclear features leaves much to the readers' imagination. It added that unclear features tend to elude a sensible comparison with the prior art. Furthermore, since opponents may not anticipate with certainty which claim construction will be adopted by the board or a court in infringement proceedings, they may feel obliged to put forward different lines of argumentation for all of the different potential interpretations. In the board’s view, categorically barring opponents in such cases from raising clarity objections under Art. 84 EPC causes undue complexities in the discussion on novelty and inventive step, to the detriment not only of opponents but also of the opposition divisions and the boards of appeal.