T 1065/23 (Pea Protein Extracts/COSUCRA) du 22.05.2025

Auxiliary request 1: added subject-matter - (no); sufficiency of disclosure, novelty and inventive step - (yes)
Admission of new submissions filed with the statement setting out the grounds of appeal - (no)
Admission of submissions filed after issuance of the board's communication under Article 15(1) RPBA: - (no)

The fact that a granted product-by-process claim defines a product which could be satisfactorily defined by reference to its composition, structure or other testable parameter is not, as such, a ground for opposition set out in Article 100 EPC. Thus, an objection cannot be raised on this sole ground against that granted claim (reasons 4.35 to 4.38).
When assessing inventive step, the fact that the cut-off values of a range defining a claimed parameter exclude some lower or higher values suitable to achieve a relevant technical effect is not, as such, a reason to consider the selection of those cut-off values "arbitrary" and the claimed subject-matter obvious over the prior art. What counts is that the effect obtained operating within the claimed range goes beyond that achieved following the teaching of the prior art (reasons 5.12 to 5.25).