Abstract on Article 069(1) EPC for the decision T0837/24 of 08.12.2025

In T 837/24 claim 1 of the main request related to a method of providing presence information for use in a personal communications system comprising a headset and an interface unit. It included among other features, the provision of a presence message indicating whether the mobile telephone was involved in a phone call (F1.3) with or without using the headset (F1.3.1) or indicating whether the desktop telephone was involved in a phone call (F1.4) with or without using the headset (F1.4.1). In the decision under appeal, the opposition division had construed the expression "with or without using the headset" of features F1.3.1 and F1.4.1 as meaning that the respective telephone was involved in a phone call "regardless of the use of the headset". The proprietor argued before the board, by referring to Art. 69(1) EPC and G 1/24, that this interpretation was the only technically sensible and thus "correct" one in view of the patent description and drawings. The board recalled that claim interpretation as such is a matter of law and may change as the proceedings evolve (see R 25/22, R 14/23). The board considered that the above interpretation constrained the "presence message" to only indicating an ongoing "phone call". Doing so amounted virtually to ignoring features F1.3.1 and F1.4.1 altogether. This, however, did not constitute a good-faith interpretation of the claim, since a technically meaningful feature would then be omitted: when construing a claim, the skilled reader typically makes use of a "mind willing to understand". Therefore, a technical meaning was typically given to each claim feature when construing the subject-matter of a claim in an objective manner (T 423/23, T 10/22). The board concurred with the opponent that the wording of claim 1 allowed for another claim construction where the "presence message" contained specific information (e.g. via a message flag) whether or not the "headset" was used for the respective "phone call". The board considered this to be a technically meaningful interpretation, as it gave a technical meaning to each feature of claim 1. This claim construction was equally valid, if not preferable, to the interpretation of the opposition division, and had therefore also to be considered when determining compliance with Art. 123(2) EPC. The board stated that a patent, and specifically a claim, has to be interpreted according to the technical information it provides, and all interpretations that are technically valid must be considered as technically meaningful interpretations, and neither of these interpretations may extend beyond the content of the application as filed within the meaning of Art. 123(2) EPC. There was however no indication in Art. 69(1) EPC or in G 1/24 that "using", "consulting" or "referring to" the description and drawings would mandate a claim interpretation that necessarily complies with Art. 123(2) EPC, irrespective of whether that interpretation is preferable or more likely (see also T 405/24 and the decisions cited therein). The aspect of an indication whether the "phone call" was actually performed by the "use of a headset" was not derivable from the description as filed. Therefore, the board decided that the main request was not allowable under Art. 123(2) EPC. In claim 1 of auxiliary requests M-A and M-B the specific "presence message" indicating whether a "headset was used" was no longer required. The board found that such amendment extended the protection conferred by the patent as granted, since such feature was a mandatory feature of claim 1 as granted according to the "opponent's claim construction". According to the board, by analogy, the same applies to compliance with Art. 123(3) EPC as has been set out above for the compliance with Art. 123(2) EPC: If a granted claim allows for several technically meaningful interpretations, it has to be ensured that according to neither of these interpretations the protection conferred by it is extended. In that context, it is immaterial which of these technically meaningful interpretations may be preferable or more likely. In the present case, on the basis of the "opponent's claim construction", a mandatory feature of claim 1 as granted had been removed. Hence, claim 1 of auxiliary requests M-A and M-B extended the scope of protection vis-à-vis claim 1 as granted.