In the event at problems the goal of the creation a€“ namely increasing the selectivity to TCS a€“ is merely achieved by the addition of selected amounts of chromium to silicon and therefore this particular feature had not been “closely regarding one other traits regarding the operating sample and relates straight and unambiguously for the more common perspective” as required in T . The existing decision has also been in line with T . It observed that the choosing for the value 550 ppm from employed instance 3 is for that reason clearly acceptable in the event at concern, making use of the outcome that the requirements of Art. 123(2) EPC comprise achieved.

1.3 Specialized share a€“ improvement or removal of a feature

In T the panel emphasised that the standards where a modification need to be right and unambiguously derivable, making use of typical basic facts, and seen fairly and in accordance with the date of processing, from whole of program as registered, stays a pre-requisite for judging any modification with regards to the dependence on artwork. 123(2) EPC. For this reason, the “relevance”, therefore, on the technical information is not of importance for choosing the issue of Art. 123(2) EPC. In the event at problems it can also not recognized from the panel whenever a skilled people used his usual basic skills, however then reach the mixture of properties in claim 11 of auxiliary request 2.

Nothing have been submitted by the appellant (manager) to aid this debate, nor had been such details derivable from program as registered. The appellant’s (proprietor’s) discussion that an experienced people would understand what areas happened to be commercially highly relevant to the invention whenever adding particular further architectural attributes to the claim is totally personal.

It thus used that the introduction into claim 11 of both first and second features lead to the skilled person are presented with a new mix of properties (i.e. brand new technical info) that he wouldn’t derive directly and unambiguously, utilizing usual general wisdom, from application as registered. State 11 thus contravened Art. 123(2) EPC and reliable demand 2 got thus maybe not allowable.

1.4 Disclaimers

The Enlarged panel in grams 2/10 (OJ EPO 2012, 376) answered the concerns described it by interlocutory , 256) the following:

1a. a modification to a state by the introduction of a disclaimer disclaiming from it subject-matter revealed for the application as filed infringes ways. 123(2) EPC in the event that subject-matter leftover into the state following introduction regarding the disclaimer isn’t, be it explicitly or implicitly, immediately and unambiguously disclosed with the skilled individual using common general understanding, for the application as filed.

1b. Deciding if that’s the case needs a technical evaluation from the as a whole technical conditions of this specific case into consideration, looking at the nature and level in the disclosure within the application as filed, the nature and extent of the disclaimed subject-matter and its commitment utilizing the subject-matter leftover in the claim following the amendment.

Situation T related to an undisclosed disclaimer. Choice G 2/10 had been consequently, prima-facie, perhaps not interested in equivalent condition, so that it got questioned from the board whether that decision is applicable whatsoever for the situation before it.

It concluded, after detail by detail thought, that the examination of G 2/10 (discover grams 2/10, part 1a in the Order, tips 4.5.1 and 4.5.2 of the Reasons) also pertains to a modification involving an undisclosed disclaimer in the shape of which a claim is made newer over a European patent program relating to artwork. 54(3) EPC. The examination of the admissibility of this amendment for conformity with Art. 123(2) EPC must be made separately for all the disclaimer by itself and also for the subject-matter continuing to be for the declare (discover point 4. reason).