4.5. Ausdrückliche oder implizite Offenbarung der Erfindungsmerkmale im Prioritätsdokument
4.5.1 Alle Erfindungsmerkmale in der Prioritätsunterlage offenbart – Beispiele
In T 289/00 betraf das strittige Merkmal in Anspruch 1 einen allseitig geschlossenen Kanal. Die Kammer stellte fest, es treffe zwar zu, dass die Bezeichnung des Kanals als luftgefüllt in der Prioritätsanmeldung für sich genommen noch nicht bedeutet, dass es sich um einen geschlossenen Kanal handle. Diese Angabe müsse im Zusammenhang mit anderen Informationen gesehen werden, die die Fachperson zu dieser Frage aus der Anmeldung entnimmt (s. Art. 88 (4) EPÜ 1973). Die Fachperson komme bei verständiger Würdigung der Gesamtheit der Unterlagen der Prioritätsanmeldung auch ohne weitere Angaben zu dem Ergebnis, dass der Kanal allseitig geschlossen sein soll.
In T 578/08 umfasste das Patent ausschließlich Vorrichtungsansprüche, die frühere Anmeldung nur Verfahrensansprüche (die Beschreibung und die Zeichnungen waren im Wesentlichen identisch). Die Kammer stellte allerdings fest, dass Anspruch 1 der früheren Anmeldung seinem Wortlaut nach strukturelle Elemente einer Vorrichtung voraussetzte und im Übrigen auch Verfahrensschritte, die nur mit geeigneten und somit strukturellen technischen Mitteln umgesetzt werden konnten. Implizit waren somit allgemeine technische Mittel zur Ausführung der genannten Funktionen offenbart. Außerdem wurde in der früheren Anmeldung mehrmals darauf hingewiesen, dass das beschriebene und beanspruchte Verfahren automatisch abläuft, was entsprechende technische Mittel bedingt. Der Prioritätsanspruch war daher gültig.
- T 0493/23
In T 493/23 the invention related to a threaded pipe connection. The patent had been granted on the basis of an application (the "PCT application") filed on 15 September 2017 published under the PCT and claiming priority from application JP 2016-181176 (the "priority application"). The appellant (opponent) argued that neither claim 1 of the twelfth auxiliary request nor claim 1 of the thirteenth auxiliary request validly claimed priority from the priority application.
(1) Twelfth auxiliary request
Compared to the priority application, claim 1 of the twelfth auxiliary request had been amended by adding, inter alia, feature 1.3. This requirement limited the female thread in that it should include a varying-thread-width portion having a thread-ridge width gradually increasing and a thread-groove width gradually decreasing toward a centre of the box. The parties agreed that this additional feature was taken verbatim from the description of the priority application and, in this respect, mentioned paragraph [0049] of D10 (a marked-up version of the English translation of the PCT-application showing the changes made in relation to the priority application). The appellant's objection was directed against the fact that the additional constraint of paragraph [0049] of D10 that the thread-groove width of the female thread corresponds to the thread-ridge width of the male thread in the respective varying-thread-width portions was not incorporated in claim 1 of the twelfth auxiliary request. The appellant argued that the verb "to correspond" implied that the widths were equal. Contrary to the view of the opposition division, the additional text in claim 1, did not require this.
According to the board, the expression "correspond to" in paragraph [0049] of D10 was not to be understood in a broad sense as encompassing variations that result in gaps between the thread flanks. The opposition division seemed to have inferred the additional constraint of paragraph [0049] from features 1.4 to 1.6 of claim 1 of the then auxiliary request 9. However, the board was unable to derive from the general wording of these features whether or not the widths of the individual female ridges and grooves corresponded to those of the male grooves and ridges, respectively, in the varying-thread-width portions. Also the additional features 1.7a and 1.8a of claim 1 of the twelfth auxiliary request did not imply the constraint set by the last sentence of paragraph [0049] of D10. The board concluded that there was no direct and unambiguous disclosure in the priority application of a threaded connection having feature 1.3 of claim 1 without the additional constraint.
In a further line of argument and referring to G 1/15, the respondents (patent proprietors) submitted that claim 1 enjoyed partial priority for those threaded connections where the widths were the same in the varying-thread-width portions. The board was not persuaded. In the present case, claim 1 did not contain any generic expression that could be understood to encompass alternative subject-matter. Claim 1 was not a generic "OR"-claim in the sense of G 1/15. The board concluded that claim 1 of the twelfth auxiliary did not validly claim priority. As a result, D5 was novelty destroying.
(2) Thirteenth auxiliary request
All three lines of argument raised by the appellant were rejected by the board. On the first, the board concluded that, compared to the priority application, the meaning of the expression "toward a centre of the box" in feature 1.3 of claim 1 did not change by adding it to a claim which did not specify the type of threaded connection. Also for embodiments of the integral-type connection there was basis in the priority application for the claimed changes of the female thread width towards the centre of the box. On the second line of argument (which built further on the objection raised in the context of the twelfth auxiliary request), the board concluded that the various restrictions of claim 1 were such that also the feature disclosed in the last-but-one sentence of paragraph [0049] of D10 was implicit. The third line of argument was directed against the omission from claim 1 of the physical location of the constant-thread-width portions and the varying-thread-width portions, despite it being disclosed in paragraphs [0054] and [0055] of D10 on which the amendments of features 1.5 and 1.6 were based. The board considered these positions to be implicit in claim 1. The board concluded that claim 1 of the thirteenth auxiliary request validly claimed the priority from the priority application. The effective date was thus 16 September 2016. As a consequence, D5 was not comprised in the state of the art under Art. 54(2) or (3) EPC.