In T 1311/15 the parties did not dispute that claim 1 did not include any flammability requirement in its wording. It was however also undisputed that the invention aimed at providing non-flammable refrigerant compositions. The question arose whether, when examining the ground of opposition under Art. 100(b) EPC the intended effect of the claimed subject-matter should be taken into account. It is however well-established case law that an objection of insufficient disclosure cannot legitimately be based on an argument that the patent does not enable a skilled person to achieve a technical effect which is not defined in the claim.
An objection of insufficient disclosure under Art. 83 EPC cannot legitimately be based on an argument that the application would not enable a skilled person to achieve a non-claimed technical effect (T 2001/12, citing mainly G 1/03 (OJ, 2004, 413) but also T 1079/08, T 939/92 and T 260/98). T 2001/12 dealt with the distinction between the requirements of sufficiency of disclosure (Art. 83 EPC), clarity of the claims (Art. 84 EPC) and inventive step (Art. 56 EPC). That decision was cited in T 862/11, in which the board addressed the relevance of the technical effect for the purposes of Art. 83 EPC and concluded that a distinction had to be made between how the effect was to be considered in that context and how it was to be considered for the purposes of Art. 56 EPC.
T 206/13 also applied T 2001/12, in so far as the examining division, in the context of the assessment of sufficiency of disclosure of claims 1 and 11, had referred to technical aspects which, in its opinion, were not sufficiently disclosed. The board pointed out that these technical aspects were not defined in claims 1 and 11 and, consequently, were not to be considered in the assessment under Art. 83 EPC of the invention defined in claims 1 and 11. The requirement of sufficiency of disclosure related to the invention defined in the claims, and in particular to the combination of structural and functional features of the claimed invention, and there was no legal basis for extending such a requirement also to encompass other technical aspects possibly associated with the invention (in particular, technical features or effects mentioned in the description) but not required by the claimed subject-matter. Such technical aspects might be pertinent in the assessment of other requirements of the EPC (in particular, the requirements of Art. 84 and 56 EPC).