D. Priority
  1. Home
  2. Legal texts
  3. Case Law of the Boards of Appeal
  4. Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office
  5. II. Patent application and amendments
  6. D. Priority
  7. 4. Identity of invention
  8. 4.7. Error margins and definitions of limits
Print
Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email

4. Identity of invention

Overview

4.7. Error margins and definitions of limits

Prior to G 2/98 (OJ 2001, 413), it was sometimes possible to claim error margins or definitions of limits which differed in the subsequent application from the original one (see T 212/88, OJ 1992, 28, T 957/91, T 65/92, T 131/92 and CLB, 3rd edn. 1998, p. 231 et seq.). Since the facts are only comparable up to a certain point, it is not possible to say unequivocally to what extent the principles laid down earlier still apply. In the decisions below, G 2/98 was applied.

In T 201/99 claim 1 referred to a mean residence time of "1-10 minutes", whereas both priority applications disclosed the range "from about 1-6 minutes" (claim 1) or, for all the examples, a specific residence time of "about 3 minutes". The board found that the features disclosed in the priority applications provided no explicit or implicit disclosure of a process wherein the second step lasted "10 minutes". Therefore, it was apparent that they were insufficient to render directly and unambiguously disclosed therein also the whole range of "1-10 minutes". The board did not accept the appellant's argument that the upper limit of "6 minutes" for the time length of the second step was not disclosed in the priorities as a cut-off value (i.e. as possibly related to the function of the invention and its effect) and thus constituted a feature which might be modified without changing the nature of the invention.

In T 250/02 the board found that the subject-matter of a claim for a herbal essential oil in which the total amount of carvacrol and thymol was at least 55%, and preferably 70%, by weight of the said essential oil and with exact ratios of carvacrol to thymol could not be derived directly and unambiguously from a priority document only disclosing a herbal oil containing "thymol and carvacrol in levels of 55% to 65%".

Further decisions concerned with differing ranges indicated in a priority document and disputed sets of claims include T 903/97, T 909/97, T 13/00, T 136/01, T 423/01, T 788/01, T 494/03 T 537/03 and T 2930/19.

Previous
Next
Footer - Service & support
  • Service & support
    • Website updates
    • Availability of online services
    • FAQ
    • Publications
    • Procedural communications
    • Contact us
    • Subscription centre
    • Official holidays
    • Glossary
Footer - More links
  • Jobs & careers
  • Press centre
  • Single Access Portal
  • Procurement
  • Boards of Appeal
Facebook
European Patent Office
EPO Jobs
Instagram
EuropeanPatentOffice
Linkedin
European Patent Office
EPO Jobs
EPO Procurement
X (formerly Twitter)
EPOorg
EPOjobs
Youtube
TheEPO
Footer
  • Legal notice
  • Terms of use
  • Data protection and privacy
  • Accessibility