European Patent Office

T 1762/21 du 14.02.2024

Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence
ECLI:EP:BA:2024:T176221.20240214
Date de la décision
14 février 2024
Numéro de l'affaire
T 1762/21
Requête en révision de
-
Numéro de la demande
09760415.1
Langue de la procédure
Anglais
Distribution
Distribuées aux présidents des chambres de recours (C)
Téléchargement
Décision en anglais
Versions JO
Aucun lien JO trouvé
Autres décisions pour cet affaire
-
Titre de la demande
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR CONTROLLING X-RAY FOCAL SPOT CHARACTERISTICS FOR TOMOSYNTHESIS AND MAMMOGRAPHY IMAGING
Nom du demandeur
Hologic, Inc.
Nom de l'opposant
Siemens Healthcare GmbH
Chambre
3.2.02
Sommaire
-
Mots-clés
Priority - validity of priority date (yes)
Priority - basis in priority document (yes)
Grounds for opposition - added subject-matter (no) -
insufficiency of disclosure (no) - novelty (yes) -
inventive step (yes)
Amendments - intermediate generalisation
Amendments - extension beyond the content of the application as filed (no)
Exergue
For assessing an intermediate generalisation in an amended claim for compliance with Article 123(2) EPC it has to be established whether, because of this generalisation, the subject-matter of the claim extends beyond what was, be it explicitly or implicitly, directly and unambiguously disclosed to the person skilled in the art using common general knowledge in the application as filed. This is the "gold" standard for assessing any amendment for its compliance with Article 123(2) EPC (G 2/10, point 4.3 of the Reasons).
If an amended claim comprises only some features of an originally disclosed combination and the features left out of the claim were understood, by the person skilled in the art, to be inextricably linked to the claimed ones, the claim includes subject-matter extending beyond the application as filed. This is the case if the person skilled in the art would have regarded the omitted features to be necessary for achieving the effect associated with the added features. In such a situation the amended claim conveys the technical teaching that the effect can be obtained with the claimed features alone, which is in contrast with and extends beyond the original disclosure that the whole combination of features was needed.
The criteria for assessing the validity of a priority for the subject-matter of a claim as set out in G 2/98, no matter whether or not the claim includes intermediate generalisations, correspond to the "gold" standard for assessing any amendment for its compliance with Article 123(2) EPC. In view of Article 88(4) EPC, it is not required that this subject-matter be disclosed in the form of a claim or in the form of an embodiment or example specified in the description of the application from which the priority is claimed. In the passage in point 4 of the Reasons of G 2/98 these items, as derived from the expression "in particular", are simply listed as exemplary parts of the application documents.
(Reasons, points 2.4 and 3.2).

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The request for referral is rejected.