Abstract on Article 069 EPC for the decision T0420/24 of 29.01.2026

In T 420/24 the appellant (patent proprietor) contended that the prior art document D1 disclosed all features of claim 1 of the patent as granted (main request). Among other things, the appellant submitted that the opposition division had incorrectly interpreted the feature "to reduce a cantilevered beam length of the corrugated knife".

To construe this feature in claim 1, the opposition division had used the definition of cantilevered beam length provided in paragraph [0026] of the contested patent, which reads as follows:

"Alternatively or in addition, the fingers 148 may improve the stability of the leading edge of the knife 126 by reducing the cantilevered beam length of the knife 126, which as used herein refers to the length or distance between the cutting edge 127 of the knife 126 and the nearest adjacent extremity of the clamp 132A applying a clamping load to the knife 126. In this case, the nearest adjacent extremity of the clamp 132A is defined by the distal ends of the fingers 148..."

The board recalled that, according to G 1/24, the description and drawings shall always be consulted to interpret the claims when assessing patentability of an invention under Art. 52 to 57 EPC. It disagreed with the appellant's view that the definition in the contested patent was only intended to be understood in relation to the specific embodiment referred to. According to the board, the use of the phrase "which as used herein refers to" indicated that the definition was a general definition.

The board therefore agreed with the opposition division that the skilled person, when interpreting the term "cantilevered beam length", would take into account the clear definition given in paragraph [0026] of the description of the contested patent.

The board concluded that the appellant had not convincingly demonstrated that the decision under appeal was incorrect with respect to the main request.