3. Clarity of claims
3.3. Indication of all essential features
According to the established case law of the boards of appeal, Art. 84 EPC has to be interpreted as meaning not only that a claim must be comprehensible from a technical point of view, but also that it must define the object of the invention clearly, that is to say indicate all the essential features thereof. An independent claim should explicitly specify all essential features needed to define the invention (G 1/04, OJ 2006, 334). All features which are necessary for solving the technical problem with which the application is concerned have to be regarded as essential features; see on this issue T 32/82, OJ 1984, 354 and T 115/83, confirmed inter alia in T 269/87; T 622/90; T 409/91, OJ 1994, 653; T 694/92, OJ 1997, 408; T 1055/92, OJ 1995, 214; T 61/94; T 488/96; T 203/98; T 260/01; T 813/03; T 1540/12; T 2427/13; T 1180/14; T 30/16; T 2291/15; T 874/16 and T 110/21. The indication of all essential features is seen as necessary to meet the clarity requirement.
In T 1957/14 the board was not persuaded by the appellant's argument that deposited material serves as a surrogate for the description of a sequence, i.e. as an alternative to structural information. In the board's opinion, relying on deposited inbred line material for the definition of the essential features of the invention and requiring it to be analysed in order to identify the relevant alleles was at odds with the principle that, generally, the meaning of a claim, including its essential features, should be clear for the person skilled in the art from the wording of the claim alone.
The essential features should in particular comprise those which distinguish the invention from the prior art (T 1055/92, T 813/03). Regarding the delimitation of essential from non-essential features, see also T 61/94, T 203/98, T 141/00, T 260/01, T 1573/12, T 2131/12 and T 21/16.
Whether a feature following the expression "in particular" has to be regarded as optional depends on the specific context (T 260/10). In T 2035/16 the board noted that "in particular" can be interpreted in two different ways, as meaning an option as in T 1882/12 or as meaning "essential" or "above all" as in T 260/10. This ambiguity of "in particular" was considered a lack of clarity by the opponent. The board, however, took the description into account and concluded that it was clear that the term "in particular near infrared radiation" in claim 1 was an optional feature, not an essential feature, and the claim was, therefore, clear.
According to the board in T 888/07, if from the wording of an independent claim it must be concluded that a solution of the problem of the invention is achieved by not needing a step, whereas this very feature according to the description cannot be abolished, but is necessary for a workable solution, then such a feature is to be considered an essential feature of the invention. An independent claim missing this feature is therefore neither clear, nor supported by the description. See also in this chapter II.A.5.
In T 809/12 the board stated that, if an independent claim contained a feature defined by a result to be achieved which essentially corresponded to the problem underlying the application, to comply with Art. 84 EPC 1973 the remaining features of the claim had to comprise all essential features necessary for achieving that result. See also T 2427/13 and T 1034/20.
According to the board in T 818/03 a method claim which does not state sufficiently clearly the steps by which a particular result was achieved might still be considered clear provided the result to be achieved was clearly defined. A claim which defines a method of achieving some less than clearly defined result might also still be considered clear provided the steps that need to be taken to achieve that result are sufficiently clearly defined. However, a claim must be considered to lack clarity if, as here, it sets out insufficiently clearly both the necessary parameters of the method and the relevant characteristic features of the result.
In T 2001/12 the board held that, if doubt that the invention as claimed is capable of solving the problem defined in the application arises because the claim fails to specify those features which are disclosed in the application as providing the solution to the problem, then the description and claims are inconsistent in relation to the definition of the invention, and an objection under Art. 84 EPC 1973 may properly arise that the claims do not contain all the essential features necessary to specify the invention (see also chapter II.C.6. "Reproducibility"). See also T 1180/14.
In T 1055/92 the board stated that since the primary function of a claim was to set out the scope of protection sought for an invention, it was not always necessary for a claim to identify technical features or steps in detail. This primary function of the claims should be clearly distinguished from the requirement that the European patent application had to disclose the invention in such a way that it enabled a person skilled in the art to carry out that same invention. Under Art. 83 EPC 1973 sufficient disclosure was required of a European patent application but not of an individual claim as such. A claim had to comprise the essential features of the invention; the essential features should in particular comprise those features which distinguished the invention from the closest prior art. See also T 61/94.
G 1/04 (OJ 2006, 334) concerned diagnostic methods. The Enlarged Board held that a diagnostic method within the meaning of Art. 52(4) EPC 1973 had an inherent and inescapable multi-step nature. If diagnosis as the deductive medical or veterinary decision phase was a purely intellectual exercise, the feature pertaining to the diagnosis for curative purposes and the features relating to the preceding steps which were constitutive for making the diagnosis represented the essential features of a diagnostic method within the meaning of Art. 52(4) EPC 1973. Thus, in order to satisfy the requirements of Art. 84 EPC 1973, an independent claim relating to such a method must include these features. The Enlarged Board further held that, while essential features were for the most part of a technical nature, a non-technical feature constitutive for defining the invention must likewise be included as an essential feature in the independent claim. Thus, although diagnosis stricto sensu was a purely intellectual exercise unless it was carried out by a device, the feature pertaining to it was such an essential feature as to be included in the independent claim. See also chapter I.B.4.6.1c) "Clarity of a claim relating to diagnostic methods".
G 1/07 (OJ 2011, 134) concerned surgical methods. The Enlarged Board referred to G 1/04 and stated that a claim should explicitly specify all essential features and must be clear. Under Art. 84 EPC, whether or not a step being or encompassing a surgical step excluded from patentability can be omitted either by using positive wording for such omission like "pre-delivered" or by simply leaving it out from the claim depends on whether the claimed invention is fully and completely defined by the features of the claim without that step. See also chapter I.B.4.4.4c) "Surgical step part of claimed method or simply a preparatory measure?".
In T 2102/12 the application related to medical robotic systems which allow to robotically move a tool on an articulated arm in response to the surgeon's manipulation of an input device. The board referred to G 1/07 and held that claiming the measurement of the movement of the tool while "unclaiming" the movement itself rendered the claim unclear under Art. 84 EPC. The claimed method of intertwined non-surgical ("claimed") and surgical ("unclaimed") steps was not comparable to that underlying T 836/08.
In decision T 923/08 the board decided as follows: if a method for recording measurements on the human or animal body necessarily entails a surgical step in order to fix to the human or animal body a measuring device which is indispensable for performing the method, this step has to be deemed an essential feature of the method and is comprised in such a method, even if the claim contains no method feature explicitly directed to it. Such a method is excluded from patentability under Art. 53(c) EPC. The exclusion of such a surgical step, whether by stating that the surgically attached measuring device was already fixed to the body before the start of the method or whether by use of a disclaimer, breaches Art. 84 EPC 1973 because such a process claim does not then include all the essential features of the claimed invention.
- T 0602/24
In T 602/24 merkte die Kammer an, dass dem Begriff "wesentliche Merkmale" in der Rechtsprechung keine einheitliche Bedeutung beigemessen wird. Dies liege nicht nur an der Anwendung unterschiedlicher Rechtsgrundlagen für ein solches Erfordernis (Deutlichkeit des Anspruchs oder Stützung durch die Beschreibung), sondern auch an den unterschiedlichen Kriterien, anhand derer das Fehlen "wesentlicher Merkmale" geprüft werde (s. RBK, 10. Aufl. 2022, II.A.3.2., II.A.5.1.). Die Kammer fügte hinzu, dass diese uneinheitliche Handhabung durch die Rechtsprechungsanalyse in T 56/21 im Zusammenhang mit der Frage, ob Art. 84 und R. 43 EPÜ eine Rechtsgrundlage für eine obligatorische Anpassung der Beschreibung an Ansprüche liefern, veranschaulicht wurde.
Die Kammer führte aus, dass in der Rechtsprechung Einigkeit darüber besteht, dass die Prüfung der "wesentlichen Merkmale" angesichts des Erfordernisses, dass die Ansprüche durch die Beschreibung gestützt sein müssen, einen formalen Aspekt beinhaltet, insoweit als zu prüfen ist, ob das, was in den Ansprüchen definiert ist, auch in der Beschreibung zu finden ist. Darüber hinaus würden aber in vielen der im Abschnitt II.A.5.1 der Publikation RBK zitierten Entscheidungen bei der Prüfung dieses Erfordernisses materiellrechtliche Aspekte berücksichtigt. Die Prüfung dieser weiteren Aspekte gehe teilweise auf die Entscheidung T 409/91 zurück (Nr. 2 und 3.5 der Gründe). In diesem Zusammenhang verwies die Kammer desweiteren auf T 939/92 und T 1055/92 sowie auf die Entscheidungen im dritten Absatz des Teils II.A.5.1 der RBK.
Die Kammer stellte fest, dass im vorliegenden Fall die Zurückweisung des Hauptanspruchs durch die Prüfungsabteilung wegen fehlender wesentlicher Merkmale unter Bezugnahme auf Art. 84 EPÜ nicht auf einer fehlenden formalen Stütze des Anspruchs 1 durch die Beschreibung, sondern offensichtlich auf einer unzureichenden Offenbarung seines Gegenstands im Sinne des Art. 83 EPÜ beruhte. Ein solcher Einwand auf der Grundlage von Art. 84 EPÜ sei aber für die Kammer im Lichte des Zwecks der R. 43 EPÜ nicht haltbar. Außerdem sei eine solche Zurückweisung nicht im Einklang mit den "Travaux préparatoires" zum EPÜ 1973 und zum EPÜ 2000, wie aus T 1020/03 und G 3/14 hervorgehe.
Unter Berücksichtigung des Titels der R. 43 EPÜ, wonach diese die Form und den Inhalt der Patentansprüche festlegt, sowie der formalen Anforderungen für Ansprüche in R. 43 (1) bis (2) und (4) bis (7) EPÜ war der Kammer nicht ersichtlich, warum der Wortlaut des ersten Teils der R. 43 (3) EPÜ, wonach die unabhängigen Patentansprüche die wesentlichen Merkmale der Erfindung wiedergeben, im Gegensatz zu allen anderen Bestimmungen der R. 43 EPÜ Erfordernisse definieren sollte, die über die Form und den Inhalt der Ansprüche hinausgehen.
Da außerdem die Patentansprüche nach Art. 84 EPÜ den Gegenstand des Schutzbegehrens definieren ("the matter for which protection is sought"; "l'objet de la demande pour lequel la protection est recherchée"), d.h. den vom Anmelder formulierten Gegenstand, für den ein europäisches Patent beantragt wird, müssen der Kammer zufolge die wesentlichen Merkmale der Erfindung im Sinne von R. 43 (3) EPÜ diejenigen sein, die der Anmelder als wesentlich für den beantragten Patentschutz ansieht, und nicht diejenigen, die die Prüfungsabteilung als ausreichend erachtet, um materiellrechtliche Erfordernisse zu erfüllen.
Die Kammer kam daher zu dem Schluss, dass die Zurückweisung durch die Prüfungsabteilung unter Bezugnahme auf Art. 84 EPÜ mit der Begründung, dass Anspruch 1 nicht alle wesentliche Merkmale in Bezug auf das Erreichen einer Glasübergangstemperatur (Tg) von mehr als 60°C für die vernetzte Zusammensetzung enthielt, nicht überzeugend war.