1.3.9 Interprétation d'une revendication pour apprécier s'il est satisfait à l'article 123(2) CBE
Vue d'ensemble
1.3.9 Interprétation d'une revendication pour apprécier s'il est satisfait à l'article 123(2) CBE
Cette partie a été mise à jour pour refléter la jurisprudence jusqu'au 31 décembre 2025. Pour la version précédente de cette partie, veuillez vous référer à "La Jurisprudence des chambres de recours", 11e édition (PDF). |
Le présent chapitre donne un aperçu des décisions récentes dans lesquelles les chambres ont examiné l'interprétation des revendications spécifiquement lors de l'évaluation de la conformité avec l'art. 123(2) CBE. Pour un aperçu général concernant l'interprétation des revendications, voir le chapitre II.A.6. "Interprétation des revendications".
- T 1052/23
In T 1052/23 the board explained that an amended claim the wording of which was not literally included in the (earlier) application as originally filed, as in the case in hand, must generally be interpreted by using a mind willing to understand and by consulting the description and the drawings, prior to assessing whether the claimed subject-matter can be directly and unambiguously derived from the (earlier) application as filed. The board agreed with the two-step approach applied in T 2048/22 and T 873/23.
The board did not agree with the patent proprietor's narrower interpretation of claim 1, according to which a "selection" or "switching" step between two types of shapes of the printing features of the same printing plate was included. The board observed that, as held by many boards following G 1/24, the consultation of the description did not mean that restrictive features that were contained in specific embodiments in the description could limit the wording of the claims, see for example T 1232/23, T 1465/23, T 1846/23, T 1069/23, T 1351/23, T 412/24, T 2034/23 and T 1402/24. The board was of the view that also the more general statement in paragraph [0008] of the patent relating to the background of the invention and merely pointing to an advantageous method and apparatus would not prompt the skilled person to a narrower interpretation of claim 1.
The board consulted the description when interpreting claim 1 and interpreted it in a broad, technically reasonable manner. According to the board’s interpretation, claim 1 did not include the aspect of controlling the top shapes of the printing features on a same printing plate by selecting the first or second illumination intensity, so that the claim was not restricted accordingly. Omitting this essential aspect, which was included in the relevant independent claims of the parent application and presented throughout its description as a core feature of the invention, led to a broadening of the claim which therefore encompassed subject-matter that was not originally disclosed in the parent application as originally filed. Consequently, the omission amounted to an unallowable amendment and to an extension beyond the content of the parent application as filed.
With respect to dependent claims 5 and 6, the board was of the view that the features of said dependent claims were not disclosed in the claims of the parent application as originally filed. They were taken from the description, but from a specific technical context. Claim 5 and 6 as granted constituted unallowable intermediate generalisations of specific examples provided in the parent application as originally filed.
Therefore, the board concluded that the subject-matter of claims 1, 5 and 6 extended beyond the content of the earlier application as filed so that the ground for opposition under Art. 100(c) EPC prejudiced the maintenance of the opposed patent as granted.