Key points
- This case illustrates that undisclosed disclaimers arguably belong to the don't-try-this-at-home category.
- The patentee added an undisclosed disclaimer in the independent claim to restore novelty over an Article 54(3) document during the first instance opposition proceedings. The opponent appealed, the patentee did not.
- The Board judges that the disclaimer removes more than necessary and is hence not allowable under G 1/03. This created a trap for the patentee/respondent. Because of the prohibition of reformatio in peius (G1/99) the patentee can not simply narrow or delete the disclaimer. The Board turns to the exceptions indicatedin G1/99 and finds that patentee could amend the claim to restrict to basically the embodiment of the example thereby deleting the disclaimer while still being novel. Accordingly, patentee can use option 1 of the headnote of G1/99 and may not use option 2 and 3 of that headnote and may not delete the disclaimer.
- The Board considers that for the the phrase “ if such a limitation is not possible” in G1/99, hn., the question how much scope of protection remains after an amendment of the first categeory of that headnot is not relevant.
- The present Board considers the phrase “A disclaimer should not remove more than is necessary either to restore novelty ” in G1/03 hn. II.2 to be a strict requirement.
- As a comment, T 1399/13 (not cited in the present decision) held that “ In other words, a disclaimer removing more than strictly necessary to restore novelty would not be in contradiction with the spirit of G 1/03, if it were required to satisfy Article 84 EPC and it did not lead to an arbitrary reshaping of the claims.”
T 2277/18 -
https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t182277du1.html
Entscheidungsgründe
Abhaltung der mündlichen Verhandlung als Videokonferenz
[...]
Der Disclaimer der aufrechterhaltenen Anspruchsfassung
2. Im Vergleich zur erteilten Fassung enthält der unabhängige Anspruch 1 des von der Einspruchsabteilung aufrechterhaltenen damaligen und jetzigen Hilfsantrags 2 einen Disclaimer, der Implantate aus den spezifischen Mg-Zn-Ca Legierungen der Ausführungsbeispiele 2, 5, 6 und 8 des Artikel 54(3) EPÜ Dokuments E1 vom Schutzbereich ausnimmt.
Dieser Disclaimer ist in der ursprünglich eingereichten Fassung nicht offenbart.
3. In G 1/16 (AB 2018, A70, Leitsatz) wurde bestätigt, dass für einen solchen nicht offenbarten Disclaimer weiterhin die Kriterien von G 1/03 (AB 8-9/2004, 413) anzuwenden sind.
Nach letzterer Entscheidung sollte ein Disclaimer nicht mehr ausschließen als nötig, um die Neuheit wiederherzustellen (Leitsatz II.2).
source http://justpatentlaw.blogspot.com/2021/06/t-227718-trapped-by-disclaimer.html
