4. Clarity and interpretation of claims
4.22 Broad claims
The EPC does not explicitly mention overly broad claims. Broad claims are therefore not unclear per se. In particular, the clarity of a claim is not affected by the mere breadth of a term contained in it, if the meaning of the term is clear to the skilled person. However, objections to such claims may be raised for various reasons.
A broad claim lacks clarity if the skilled person cannot determine the demarcation of the scope of the claim without undue burden. Moreover, whereWhere there are discrepancies between the claims and the description, the claims mayare not be sufficiently supported by the description (Art. 84) and also, in most cases, the invention may not beis not sufficiently disclosed over the whole of the broad field claimed (Art. 83) (see T 409/91, F‑IV, 6.1 and F‑IV, 6.4).
A lack-of-novelty objection may be raised, for example, if the claim is formulated in such broad terms that it also covers known subject-matter from other technical fields. Broad claims may also cover embodiments for which a purported effect has not been achieved. On raising an objection of lack of inventive step in such cases, see G‑VII, 5.2.
For broad claims in opposition proceedings, see also D‑V, 4 and D-V, 5.