E. Amendments

Exceptions to the "gold standard" (point 2.2 of the reasons)

Selections in two or more lists, see points 1.4 and 1.5 of the reasons

Die Streichung eines in einer Anmeldung wie ursprünglich eingereicht ausdrücklich als "Nicht-Teil" der Erfindung offenbarten Disclaimers ist nicht zulässig, wenn die Streichung dazu führt, dass der "Nicht-Teil" teilweise doch beansprucht wird. Die Tatsache, dass es sich bei der Anmeldung um eine Teilanmeldung handelt und dass der Disclaimer patentrechtliche Gründe hatte, ist dabei unerheblich.

It is the responsibility of the representative to consult with its client (appellant) when presenting arguments about essential distinguishing features of the invention over the closest prior art. It is however the ultimate responsibility of the appellant to file amendments. Generally, these distinguishing features, presented as essential ones, could not anymore be considered as being obvious errors afterwards (Reasons, 3.5.6); The disclosure of a family member of a document cited in an application can not be used to dispel doubts as to the meaning of an ambiguous part of the application (Reasons 3.13.1); the (technically) skilled person might be considered a multilingual person but not normally a linguist (Reasons 3.13.7).

A new definition or the re-defining of a known term does not add subject matter, if there is pertinent disclosure in the application as a whole (point 18).

Zur Möglichkeit und den Folgen von Berichtigungen inhaltlich unzutreffender, in der Patentschrift enthaltener Hinweise auf den Stand der Technik, siehe Punkte 2. bis 2.5 und 3.3.3 bis 3.3.6

The criteria set out in the Guidelines for Examination in the European Patent Office (November 2016 update) at paragraph H.IV.3.5, concerning the allowability of amendments under Article 123(3) EPC, are inappropriate for the assessment of compliance with Article 123(2) EPC (see point 1.5.1 of the reasons).

Assessing compliance with Article 123(3) EPC does not include a test taking into account national infringement laws such as the rules on contributory infringement (point 6.2 of the Reasons).

If a claim is ambiguous/unclear, all technically reasonable claim interpretations must be considered. If one of those interpretations contains matter that extends beyond the content of the application as originally filed, it must be concluded that added subject-matter is present (reasons point 11).

1) When fall-back positions for a feature are described in terms of a list of converging alternatives, the choice of a more or less preferred element from such a list should not be treated as an arbitrary selection, because this choice does not lead to a singling out of an invention from among a plurality of distinct options, but simply to a subject-matter based on a more or less restricted version of said feature.

2) A claim amended on the basis of multiple selections from lists of converging alternatives might be considered to meet the requirements of Article 123(2) EPC if: - the subject-matter resulting from the multiple selections is not associated with an undisclosed technical contribution, and - the application as filed includes a pointer to the combination of features resulting from the multiple selections.

(1) With respect to the assessment of compliance with Article 123(2) EPC, the fact that a claim of a patent is to be construed by a mind willing to understand and not a mind desirous of misunderstanding does not mean that the description and the drawings have automatically to be consulted when an "ambiguous" feature (i.e. a feature which at least theoretically allows more than one interpretation) occurs in the claim, or where the claim as a whole includes one or more inconsistencies, to resolve that ambiguity or inconsistency. Rather, the claim should essentially be read and interpreted on its own merits (see points 2.6.1 and 2.6.2 of the Reasons).

(2) As to the issue of an "inescapable trap", see point 4 of the Reasons.

Implicitly disclosed disclaimer (see point 4 of the reasons)

See points 3.1 to 3.7.3 of the Reasons

The added features cannot be considered to be the deliberate result of technical considerations directed to the solution of the technical problem involved. In the absence of any identified technical purpose justifying the features in question, their selection in a claim is arbitrary (cf. points 16-22).

See Reasons, point 5.11:

Where an expression in a granted claim, taken literally and in isolation, would have the effect of excluding all of the disclosed embodiments from the scope of protection, but where a definition of the expression may be derived from the patent itself which would locate (at least some of) the disclosed embodiments within the ambit of the claim, and provided this definition is not manifestly unreasonable, having regard to the normal meaning of the words used in the expression, then in judging compliance with the requirements of Article 123(3) EPC, the scope of protection should normally be considered to include at least that which would fall within the terms of the claim understood according to this definition.

The requirement in G 1/03 that an accidental novelty-destroying disclosure has to be completely irrelevant for assessing inventive step is to be understood not as an alternative, or additional criterion, but as a consequence of the criterion that, from a technical point of view, said disclosure is so unrelated and remote that the person skilled in the art would never have taken it into consideration when making or working on the invention (points 2 and 7).

In view of Article 69(1) EPC which states that the description and the drawings shall be used to interpret the claims when determining the extent of the protection conferred by a European patent, after grant, any information in the description and/or drawings of a patent directly related to a feature of a claim and potentially restricting its interpretation cannot be removed from the patent without infringing Article 123(3) EPC.