4.5. Divulgation explicite ou implicite dans le document de priorité des caractéristiques de l'invention
4.5.1 Exemples – les caractéristiques de l'invention sont toutes divulguées dans le document de priorité
Dans l'affaire T 289/00, selon la caractéristique contestée de la revendication 1, un canal était fermé sur tous les côtés. La chambre a admis que la référence à un canal "rempli d'air" faite dans la demande dont la priorité était revendiquée n'impliquait pas en soi que ce canal était fermé. Toutefois, il convenait de considérer cette mention en relation avec d'autres informations que la personne du métier tire de la demande en rapport avec cette question (cf. art. 88(4) CBE 1973). Par l'appréciation raisonnable de l'ensemble des documents de la demande antérieure, même en l'absence d'autres indications, la personne du métier est amenée à conclure que le canal doit être fermé sur tous les côtés.
Dans l'affaire T 578/08, le brevet ne comportait que des revendications de dispositif alors que la demande antérieure ne comportait que des revendications de procédé (la description et les dessins étant sensiblement identiques). Cependant, la chambre a estimé que déjà dans son libellé la revendication 1 de la demande antérieure exigeait la présence de composants structurels d'un dispositif et, par ailleurs, des étapes de procédé dont la mise en œuvre ne pouvait se faire que par des moyens techniques appropriés et donc structurels. Des moyens techniques généraux appropriés permettant d'exécuter lesdites fonctions étaient donc implicitement divulgués. En outre, il était précisé à plusieurs reprises dans la demande antérieure que le procédé décrit et revendiqué était exécuté automatiquement, ce qui impliquait la présence de moyens techniques correspondants. La priorité était valablement revendiquée.
- T 0493/23
In T 493/23 the invention related to a threaded pipe connection. The patent had been granted on the basis of an application (the "PCT application") filed on 15 September 2017 published under the PCT and claiming priority from application JP 2016-181176 (the "priority application"). The appellant (opponent) argued that neither claim 1 of the twelfth auxiliary request nor claim 1 of the thirteenth auxiliary request validly claimed priority from the priority application.
(1) Twelfth auxiliary request
Compared to the priority application, claim 1 of the twelfth auxiliary request had been amended by adding, inter alia, feature 1.3. This requirement limited the female thread in that it should include a varying-thread-width portion having a thread-ridge width gradually increasing and a thread-groove width gradually decreasing toward a centre of the box. The parties agreed that this additional feature was taken verbatim from the description of the priority application and, in this respect, mentioned paragraph [0049] of D10 (a marked-up version of the English translation of the PCT-application showing the changes made in relation to the priority application). The appellant's objection was directed against the fact that the additional constraint of paragraph [0049] of D10 that the thread-groove width of the female thread corresponds to the thread-ridge width of the male thread in the respective varying-thread-width portions was not incorporated in claim 1 of the twelfth auxiliary request. The appellant argued that the verb "to correspond" implied that the widths were equal. Contrary to the view of the opposition division, the additional text in claim 1, did not require this.
According to the board, the expression "correspond to" in paragraph [0049] of D10 was not to be understood in a broad sense as encompassing variations that result in gaps between the thread flanks. The opposition division seemed to have inferred the additional constraint of paragraph [0049] from features 1.4 to 1.6 of claim 1 of the then auxiliary request 9. However, the board was unable to derive from the general wording of these features whether or not the widths of the individual female ridges and grooves corresponded to those of the male grooves and ridges, respectively, in the varying-thread-width portions. Also the additional features 1.7a and 1.8a of claim 1 of the twelfth auxiliary request did not imply the constraint set by the last sentence of paragraph [0049] of D10. The board concluded that there was no direct and unambiguous disclosure in the priority application of a threaded connection having feature 1.3 of claim 1 without the additional constraint.
In a further line of argument and referring to G 1/15, the respondents (patent proprietors) submitted that claim 1 enjoyed partial priority for those threaded connections where the widths were the same in the varying-thread-width portions. The board was not persuaded. In the present case, claim 1 did not contain any generic expression that could be understood to encompass alternative subject-matter. Claim 1 was not a generic "OR"-claim in the sense of G 1/15. The board concluded that claim 1 of the twelfth auxiliary did not validly claim priority. As a result, D5 was novelty destroying.
(2) Thirteenth auxiliary request
All three lines of argument raised by the appellant were rejected by the board. On the first, the board concluded that, compared to the priority application, the meaning of the expression "toward a centre of the box" in feature 1.3 of claim 1 did not change by adding it to a claim which did not specify the type of threaded connection. Also for embodiments of the integral-type connection there was basis in the priority application for the claimed changes of the female thread width towards the centre of the box. On the second line of argument (which built further on the objection raised in the context of the twelfth auxiliary request), the board concluded that the various restrictions of claim 1 were such that also the feature disclosed in the last-but-one sentence of paragraph [0049] of D10 was implicit. The third line of argument was directed against the omission from claim 1 of the physical location of the constant-thread-width portions and the varying-thread-width portions, despite it being disclosed in paragraphs [0054] and [0055] of D10 on which the amendments of features 1.5 and 1.6 were based. The board considered these positions to be implicit in claim 1. The board concluded that claim 1 of the thirteenth auxiliary request validly claimed the priority from the priority application. The effective date was thus 16 September 2016. As a consequence, D5 was not comprised in the state of the art under Art. 54(2) or (3) EPC.