T 0697/22 of 29.07.2025

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2025:T069722.20250729
Date of decision: 29 July 2025
Case number: T 0697/22
Petition for review of: -
Application number: 07704142.4
IPC class: A01G 24/00 A01G 24/18
Language of proceedings: English
Distribution: Published in the EPO's Official Journal (A)
Download: Decision in English
OJ versions: German
English
French
Other decisions for this case: -
Abstracts for this decision: Abstract on Article 112(1)(a) EPC
Application title: HYDROPONICS GROWING MEDIUM
Applicant name: Knauf Insulation
Opponent name: ROCKWOOL INTERNATIONAL A/S
Board: 3.3.02
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions: European Patent Convention Art 112(1)(a)European Patent Convention Art 123(2)European Patent Convention Art 54(2)European Patent Convention Art 54(3)European Patent Convention Art 56 European Patent Convention Art 83 European Patent Convention Art 84 European Patent Convention R 42 European Patent Convention R 43 European Patent Convention R 48 European Patent Convention R 71(1)Guidelines_F-IV 4(4)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 012(2)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 013(1)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 013(2)
Keywords: Amendments - added subject-matter
Novelty
Inventive step
Sufficiency of disclosure
Late-filed request
Amendment to appeal case
Claims - adaptation of the description
Referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal
Catchword: The following questions are referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal for decision.
1. If the claims of a European patent are amended during opposition proceedings or opposition-appeal proceedings, and the amendment introduces an inconsistency between the amended claims and the description of the patent, is it necessary, to comply with the requirements of the EPC, to adapt the description to the amended claims so as to remove the inconsistency?
2. If the first question is answered in the affirmative, which requirement(s) of the EPC necessitate(s) such an adaptation?
3. Would the answer to questions 1 and 2 be different if the claims of a European patent application are amended during examination proceedings or examination-appeal proceedings, and the amendment introduces an inconsistency between the amended claims and the description of the patent application?
Cited cases: G 0007/93 G 0003/14 G 0001/24 J 0014/19 T 0011/82 T 0403/88 T 0619/00 T 0430/02 T 0073/04 T 1252/11 T 2378/13 T 0237/16 T 1956/16 T 2641/16 T 1579/17 T 2178/17 T 2498/17 T 2766/17 T 1024/18 T 1168/18 T 1968/18 T 2293/18 T 2391/18 T 3003/18 T 0140/19 T 2194/19 T 2685/19 T 3097/19 T 0121/20 T 0169/20 T 0250/20 T 0454/20 T 1444/20 T 1516/20 T 0056/21 T 0623/21 T 1018/21 T 1426/21 T 1452/21 T 1472/21 T 1614/21 T 1695/21 T 1784/21 T 0438/22 T 0447/22 T 0673/22 T 0736/22 T 1048/22 T 1571/22 T 1745/22 T 0168/24
Citing cases: T 0235/25

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

The following questions are referred to the Enlarged Board of

Appeal for decision:

1. If the claims of a European patent are amended during opposition proceedings or opposition-appeal proceedings, and the amendment introduces an inconsistency between the amended claims and the description of the patent, is it necessary, to comply with the requirements of the EPC, to adapt the description to the amended claims so as to remove the inconsistency?

2. If the first question is answered in the affirmative, which requirement(s) of the EPC necessitate(s) such an adaptation?

3. Would the answer to questions 1 and 2 be different if the claims of a European patent application are amended during examination proceedings or examination-appeal proceedings, and the amendment introduces an inconsistency between the amended claims and the description of the patent application?