T 0169/20 (Pouch with inner container/Reckitt) of 23.01.2023
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:2023:T016920.20230123
- Date of decision
- 23 January 2023
- Case number
- T 0169/20
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- 13750929.5
- IPC class
- C11D 17/04
- Language of proceedings
- English
- Distribution
- Distributed to board chairmen and members (B)
- Download
- Decision in English
- OJ versions
- No OJ links found
- Other decisions for this case
- -
- Abstracts for this decision
- Abstract on EPC2000 Art 084
- Application title
- PACKAGED DETERGENT COMPOSITION
- Applicant name
- Reckitt Benckiser Vanish B.V.
- Opponent name
- Henkel AG & Co. KGaA
- Board
- 3.3.06
- Headnote
- -
- Relevant legal provisions
- EPC2000_Art_069_Protocol_InterpretationEuropean Patent Convention Art 56European Patent Convention Art 69(1)European Patent Convention Art 84European Patent Convention R 42(1)(c)European Patent Convention R 43(1)European Patent Convention R 43(6)
- Keywords
- Claimed invention and support by the description - Legal basis for claim interpretation
Inventive step - (no)
Claims - clarity after amendment (no) - Catchword
- 1. The provisions in Article 84 EPC and Rules 42 and 43 EPC provide an adequate legal basis for claim interpretation when assessing patentability. In particular, the requirement that the claims shall be "supported by the description" in Article 84 EPC, 2nd sentence, indicates that the description may be relied upon as an aid or support for understanding the subject-matter of the claims.
2. However, as implicitly derivable from this provision, the support of the description for interpreting the claims should only be resorted to in the exceptional cases where the subject-matter of the invention and/or its technical context needs to be clarified, and may only be applicable when the invention in the description corresponds to the invention as claimed.
3. The support of the description should, in any case, not be used for restricting or modifying the subject-matter of the invention beyond what a person skilled in the art would understand when reading the wording of the claims within the relevant technical context.
Order
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The decision under appeal is set aside.
2. The patent is revoked.