European Patent Office

Résumé de EPC2000 Art 084 pour la décision T0566/20 du 29.02.2024

Données bibliographiques

Chambre de recours
3.5.04
Inter partes/ex parte
Inter partes
Langue de la procédure
Anglais
Clé de distribution
Non distribuées (D)
Articles de la CBE
Art 123(2) Art 84
Règles de la CBE
-
RPBA:
-
Autres dispositions légales
-
Mots-clés
claims - claim interpretation - in the context of assessing added matter
Affaires citées
T 1127/16T 0169/20
Livre de jurisprudence
II.A.6.1, II.E.1.3.9, 10th edition

Résumé

In T 566/20 the parties disagreed on the interpretation of the feature "the position information in association with the serial number information output from the position control device". The appellant (opponent) submitted that the position control device could output the serial number information, possibly with the position information. In their opinion, this interpretation was grammatically correct, made technical sense and was not disclosed in the application as originally filed. In the respondent's view, it was apparent from the claim that the output from the position control device concerned the position information in association with the serial number information. The respondent also noted that this interpretation was in accordance with the disclosure of the application as filed. The board concurred with the appellant that outputting both the position information and the associated serial number information from the position control device was technically sensible. It further agreed with the appellant that the fact that the claim did not include a step of receiving serial number information did not necessarily mean that the position control device did not receive this information. Outputting both the position information and the serial number information allowed the vision measuring system to match position information with image information by unambiguously correlating serial number information associated with, or included in, each of them. This interpretation did not appear to give rise to incompatibilities with the remaining features of the claim. Moreover, the board endorsed the view that a patent proprietor would be awarded an unwarranted advantage if it were allowed to restrict the claimed subject-matter by discarding at will technically reasonable interpretations in view of the description (see T 1127/16 and T 169/20). Therefore, the fact that the description and drawings support one interpretation of an ambiguous feature was not sufficient for other interpretations of the ambiguous feature that are technically reasonable in the context of the claim to be discarded.