European Patent Office

T 1762/21 of 14.02.2024

European Case Law Identifier
ECLI:EP:BA:2024:T176221.20240214
Date of decision
14 February 2024
Case number
T 1762/21
Petition for review of
-
Application number
09760415.1
Language of proceedings
English
Distribution
Distributed to board chairmen (C)
OJ versions
No OJ links found
Other decisions for this case
-
Application title
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR CONTROLLING X-RAY FOCAL SPOT CHARACTERISTICS FOR TOMOSYNTHESIS AND MAMMOGRAPHY IMAGING
Applicant name
Hologic, Inc.
Opponent name
Siemens Healthcare GmbH
Board
3.2.02
Headnote
-
Keywords
Priority - validity of priority date (yes)
Priority - basis in priority document (yes)
Grounds for opposition - added subject-matter (no) -
insufficiency of disclosure (no) - novelty (yes) -
inventive step (yes)
Amendments - intermediate generalisation
Amendments - extension beyond the content of the application as filed (no)
Catchword
For assessing an intermediate generalisation in an amended claim for compliance with Article 123(2) EPC it has to be established whether, because of this generalisation, the subject-matter of the claim extends beyond what was, be it explicitly or implicitly, directly and unambiguously disclosed to the person skilled in the art using common general knowledge in the application as filed. This is the "gold" standard for assessing any amendment for its compliance with Article 123(2) EPC (G 2/10, point 4.3 of the Reasons).
If an amended claim comprises only some features of an originally disclosed combination and the features left out of the claim were understood, by the person skilled in the art, to be inextricably linked to the claimed ones, the claim includes subject-matter extending beyond the application as filed. This is the case if the person skilled in the art would have regarded the omitted features to be necessary for achieving the effect associated with the added features. In such a situation the amended claim conveys the technical teaching that the effect can be obtained with the claimed features alone, which is in contrast with and extends beyond the original disclosure that the whole combination of features was needed.
The criteria for assessing the validity of a priority for the subject-matter of a claim as set out in G 2/98, no matter whether or not the claim includes intermediate generalisations, correspond to the "gold" standard for assessing any amendment for its compliance with Article 123(2) EPC. In view of Article 88(4) EPC, it is not required that this subject-matter be disclosed in the form of a claim or in the form of an embodiment or example specified in the description of the application from which the priority is claimed. In the passage in point 4 of the Reasons of G 2/98 these items, as derived from the expression "in particular", are simply listed as exemplary parts of the application documents.
(Reasons, points 2.4 and 3.2).

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The request for referral is rejected.