C. Possibilité d'exécuter l'invention
Overview
C. Possibilité d'exécuter l'invention
3.Eléments de la demande déterminants pour l'appréciation de la suffisance de l'exposé
4.Connaissances de l'homme du métier déterminantes pour l'appréciation de la suffisance de l'exposé
5.Exposé clair et complet
6.Exécution de l'invention
7.La condition de suffisance de l'exposé dans le domaine des biotechnologies
8.Rapport entre l'article 83 et l'article 84 CBE
9.Preuve
- T 1311/22
Orientierungssatz:
Funktionelle Merkmale und Ausführbarkeit, siehe Gründe 3.2 bis 3.4 und 3.5.1.
- T 1076/21
Catchword:
The burden of proof regarding the facts, arguments and evidence on the substance (which initially lies with the opponent) does not shift to the proprietor just because the patent has been revoked due to an alleged insufficient disclosure. It is down to the patent proprietor to substantiate on appeal why that decision is wrong. The burden of proof on the substance (and in consequence the benefit of the doubt), however, is only shifted when the opposition division's assessment that the presented facts, arguments and evidence were sufficient to discharge the opponent's burden of proof turns out to be correct. (See item 1. of the grounds)
- T 867/21
Catchword: Im vorliegenden Fall konnte von der Beschwerdeführerin nicht erwartet werden, auf einen einzelnen Aspekt einer in ihrer Gesamtheit nicht überzeugenden Argumentationslinie in der angefochtenen Entscheidung der Prüfungsabteilung mit auf diesen Aspekt gerichteten Änderungen, die alle Einwände der Beschwerdekammer ausräumen, bereits bei Einlegen der Beschwerde zu reagieren.
- T 728/21
Catchword:
In accordance with the jurisprudence exemplified by T 609/02 (see section 9), the suitability of the claimed composition for the defined therapeutic use needs to be disclosed in the patent, "unless this is already known". This jurisprudence confirms in the Boards view that the disclosed utility of the claimed composition may also derive its credibility from the prior art, even if this prior art does not represent common general knowledge (see point 3.3).
- T 424/21
Catchword:
1. If the deletion of dependent claims after notification of a summons to oral proceedings enhances procedural economy by clearly overcoming existing objections without giving rise to any new issues this might constitute cogent reasons justifying exceptional circumstances in the sense of Article 13(2) RPBA 2020.
2. For a first medical use of a substance or composition according to Article 54(4) EPC to be sufficiently disclosed it is not required to show the suitability for each and every disease, but it usually suffices to show that at least one medical use is credibly achieved.
- T 149/21
Catchword:
Zur Ausführbarkeit der beanspruchten Erfindung "im gesamten beanspruchten Bereich": siehe Punkt 3 der Entscheidungsgründe.
- T 500/20
Catchword:
Reasons 3.6. In claimed inventions that do not involve a range of parameter values or compositions but are directed at a concept expressed in terms of generic structural or functional features of an apparatus or of a method, it is not enough to demonstrate insufficiency to conceive of an example that falls within the terms of the claim that does not work because it does not achieve the claimed effect fully or at all so that therefore the invention would not be sufficiently disclosed across the entire breadth of the claim.
- T 1983/19
Catchword:
Ausführbarkeit der Erfindung "über den gesamten beanspruchten Bereich" auf dem Gebiet der Mechanik (siehe Punkt 2.1.3 der Entscheidungsgründe)
- G 2/21
Headnote:
I. Evidence submitted by a patent applicant or proprietor to prove a technical effect relied upon for acknowledgement of inventive step of the claimed subject-matter may not be disregarded solely on the ground that such evidence, on which the effect rests, had not been public before the filing date of the patent in suit and was filed after that date.
II. A patent applicant or proprietor may rely upon a technical effect for inventive step if the skilled person, having the common general knowledge in mind, and based on the application as originally filed, would derive said effect as being encompassed by the technical teaching and embodied by the same originally disclosed invention.
- Compilation 2023 “Abstracts of decisions”
- Rapport annuel: jurisprudence 2022
- Résumés des décisions dans la langue de procedure