1. Article 123(2) EPC – added subject-matter
1.1. General principles
According to Art. 123(2) EPC the European patent application or the European patent may not be amended in such a way that it contains subject-matter which extends beyond the content of the application as filed. The revision of the EPC has introduced a purely editorial change to the wording of Art. 123(2) EPC.
The concept of "content of the application as filed" relates to the parts of the European patent application which determine the disclosure of the invention, namely the description, the claims and the drawings (G 3/89, OJ 1993, 117, and G 11/91, OJ 1993, 125). See in this chapter at II.E.1.2. "Content of the application as filed: Parts of the application which determine the disclosure of the invention" below.
The underlying idea of Art. 123(2) EPC is that an applicant should not be allowed to improve his position by adding subject-matter not disclosed in the application as filed, which would give him an unwarranted advantage and could be damaging to the legal security of third parties relying on the content of the original application (see G 1/93, OJ 1994, 541); otherwise, at a later stage the public could be faced with claims extending beyond what was disclosed in the application as filed and published (T 740/91 and T 1227/10). The public may not be confronted with an extent of protection, which could not have been established by a skilled person having studied the whole content of the technical disclosure of the originally filed patent application (T 157/90; see also T 187/91 and T 2327/18, which cites G 2/10, OJ 2012, 376, point 4.5.5 of the Reasons).
The "gold standard" (G 2/10, OJ 2012, 376) for assessing compliance with Art. 123(2) EPC is the following: any amendment to the parts of a European patent application or of a European patent relating to the disclosure (the description, claims and drawings) is subject to the mandatory prohibition on extension laid down in Art. 123(2) EPC and can therefore, irrespective of the context of the amendment made, only be made within the limits of what a skilled person would derive directly and unambiguously, using common general knowledge, and seen objectively and relative to the date of filing, from the whole of these documents as filed (G 3/89, OJ 1993, 117; G 11/91, OJ 1993, 125). After the amendment the skilled person may not be presented with new technical information (G 2/10; see however G 1/16 for undisclosed disclaimers). For details, see in this chapter II.E.1.3. "Standard for assessing compliance with Article 123(2) EPC" further below; for more details on G 1/16, OJ 2018, A70, see chapter II.E.1.7."Disclaimer" below.
Art. 123(2) EPC applies to all amendments to the patent application or patent. These include corrections of the description, claims or drawings under R. 139, second sentence, EPC (for details, see in this chapter II.E.4. "Correction of errors in the description, claims and drawings – Rule 139 EPC").
The Enlarged Board has stressed the importance of applying a uniform concept of disclosure (with reference to Art. 54, 87 and 123 EPC; see G 2/10, OJ 2012, 376, point 4.6 of the Reasons, citing G 1/03, OJ 2004, 413; see also G 1/15, OJ 2017, A82, with reference to G 2/98, OJ 2001, 413). See also e.g. T 330/14.
In the case of divisional applications, the same principles are to be applied for determining whether subject-matter extends beyond the content of the earlier application as filed (G 1/05 date: 2007-06-28, OJ 2008, 271, point 5.1 of the Reasons). The decisions dealing with such cases are therefore also reported in this chapter.
The same principles also apply to the ground for opposition under Art. 100(c) EPC.
The ground for opposition under Art. 100(c) EPC and the corresponding requirement of Art. 123(2) EPC in regard to any amendment carried out on the patent in the course of the opposition and opposition appeal proceedings are of equal fundamental importance compared to other requirements, such as e.g. novelty, inventive step or sufficiency of disclosure, when it comes to deciding whether a patent can be maintained; also, extension of subject-matter in the terms of Art. 123(2) EPC is not a question of "form" of the patent, which might fall under the heading of a "formal requirement", but a substantive one (T 2171/14).
- T 1054/22
Abstract
In T 1054/22 the examining division had concluded that claim 1 of the main request did not fulfil requirements of Art. 123(2) or 76(1) EPC, among other things, and it refused the patent application.
In its submissions on appeal, the applicant had argued that applying the criteria of G 1/93 (point 16 of the Reasons), the amendments did not result in an unwarranted advantage. Amended claim 1 of the main request was based on the earlier application as filed. This applied in particular to the amendments concerning the omega-6 to omega-3 ratio of 4:1 or greater and the concentration of omega-6 fatty acids (4-75% by weight of total lipids) and omega-3 fatty acids (0.1-30% by weight of total lipids).
The board dismissed the appeal. It explained that determining whether an amendment complied with the requirements of Art. 123(2) and 76(1) EPC was assessed using the "gold standard". This term was coined in G 2/10, in which the jurisprudence developed by the Enlarged Board in opinion G 3/89 and decision G 11/91 was confirmed.
The board explained that G 1/93 primarily concerned a case in which a granted claim could not be maintained unamended in opposition proceedings because the claim was found to contravene Art. 123(2) EPC. The examining division had allowed an amendment that should not have been allowed. As explained in G 2/10 (point 4.3 of the Reasons, last paragraph), G 1/93 was not intended to modify the "gold standard".
According to G 1/93, the purpose of Art. 123(2) EPC (and Art. 76(1) EPC) was to prevent an applicant from gaining an unwarranted advantage by obtaining patent protection for something it had not properly disclosed on the date of filing of the application. An added feature limiting the scope of the claim may still contravene Art. 123(2) EPC. An example of this, explicitly mentioned in G 1/93, is a limiting feature that creates an inventive selection not disclosed in the application as filed or otherwise derivable therefrom.
In the case in hand, value ranges had been added to claim 1 of the main request, in features a), (i) and (ii). The question was whether the skilled person would have derived these amendments directly and unambiguously, using common general knowledge, from the entirety of the earlier application as filed. What had to be examined was not only whether there was a basis for each of the features added by the amendments but also whether the skilled person would have derived the combination of features a), (i) and (ii), and that combination of features alone, from the earlier application as filed.
The board concluded that no basis could be found in the earlier application as filed for the combination of the concentration of omega-6 fatty acids of 4-75% by weight of total lipids and omega-3 fatty acids of 0.1-30% by weight of total lipids (feature (i) of claim 1 of the main request). As to the ratio (feature a) of claim 1 of the main request), there was no basis in the earlier application as filed for an open-ended ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acids of 4:1 or greater. Thus, claim 1 of the main request contravened Art. 76(1) EPC.
- T 2103/22
Abstract
In T 2103/22 the board, in order to assess compliance with the requirements of Art. 123(2) EPC, had to first determine the subject-matter effectively defined by claim 1 of the main request. In particular, the board interpreted the meaning of the following terms as well as the meaning of their combination:
a) "said polyester resin is a blended polyester resin which is a blend of a lowly crystalline polyester resin and a highly crystalline polyester resin at a weight ratio of 90:10 to 10:90 (…)"
b) "a layer of a polyester resin which comprises an ethylene terephthalate unit formed on at least one surface of the metal sheet".
The respondent (opponent) adhered to the conclusion of the opposition division which had been reached considering that "is" in term a) was to be read as "comprises", which meant that any other component different from the ones specifically mentioned in said claim 1 could be present in the blended polyester resin. The board disagreed and stated that, although it was correct that the normal rule of claim construction was that the terms used in a claim should be given their broadest technically sensible meaning, the literal reading of this passage defined that "said polyester resin" consisted of the lowly crystalline and highly crystalline polyester resins further defined in claim 1 of the main request, in the given weight ratio. In that regard, the board noted that, according to established case law (Case Law of the Boards of Appeal, 10th ed. 2022, II.A.6.2), the term "consists of" meant that the definition of "said polyester resin" was given in a "closed" manner, i.e. it excluded the presence of any other components other than the ones specifically defined (in the case at issue the lowly and highly crystalline polyester resins).
On b), the board found that the term "a layer of a polyester resin" defined, according to its literal reading, that the polyester therein mentioned, i.e. "which comprises an ethylene terephthalate unit", was the main component of the layer. However, this wording neither imposed that the polyester resin was the sole component of the layer, nor that it was the sole resin possibly present in the layer. The board further held that the reference to "unit" in that passage made it clear that the term "which" made reference to the polyester resin and not to the layer. This, in the board's view, would also be the logical reading of the claim made by the skilled person, considering that the term "which" usually makes reference to the word directly preceding it.
As the subject-matter of claim 1 of the main request was defined by the combination of terms a) and b), the board also determined the meaning of the combination of these two terms. It held that the polyester resin specified in the term "a layer of a polyester resin" was identical to the "said polyester resin" further defined in claim 1, i.e. it consisted of a blend of only the lowly and highly crystalline polyester resins.
Taking into account the further definitions of the lowly and highly crystalline polyester resins in claim 1, the board concluded that both of them were "a polyester resin that comprises an ethylene terephthalate unit". Therefore, the term "which comprises an ethylene terephthalate unit" of claim 1 of the main request was in fact redundant (i.e. not further limiting). Contrary to the view of the opposition division, the definitions of the highly and the lowly crystalline polyester resins further imposed that said terephthalate unit had to be present in majority since, otherwise, the resin would not be a "polyethylene terephthalate" anymore.
To determine whether the requirements of Art. 123(2) EPC were met, the board assessed if the deletion of the term "chiefly" from claim 1 of the application as filed resulted in added-matter. It saw no reason to deviate from the literal sense of the term "chiefly", which was that the polyester resin of the layer so defined should principally comprise an ethylene terephthalate unit not as the sole component but as the most important component of the polyester.
According to the board, adopting for the relevant passages of the application as filed the same reading as the one outlined for the corresponding passages of claim 1 of the main request, the term "which chiefly comprises an ethylene terephthalate unit" could only be held to be redundant (i.e. not further limiting) in view of the other features defining the valid support in the application as filed for the claimed subject-matter. Therefore, the presence or not in claim 1 of the main request of the terms "which chiefly comprises an ethylene terephthalate unit" or "chiefly" contained therein, did not lead to added-matter pursuant to Art. 123(2) EPC.