Decisions citing T 409/91

T 0548/91 citing T 0409/91:
{
  [1,1] = 3.1. According to recent jurisprudence of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO, the disclosure of limited ways of performing the invention can be considered to be sufficient within the meaning of Article 83 EPC if it allows the man skilled in the art to perform the invention in the whole range that is claimed (see T 409/91 dated 18 March 1993, Reasons, point 2 to be published in the OJ EPO).
}

T 0585/92 citing T 0409/91:
{}(1x0)

T 0169/93 citing T 0409/91:
{
  [1,1] = 3.3. The objection of lack of support by the description in the sense of Article 84 EPC on the ground that present Claim 1 is an unreasonable generalisation of the examples contained in the description of the patent in suit also cannot, in the Board’s judgment, be validly raised in the present case, since the expression „support by the description“ means that a claim must include all technical features stated in the description as being essential features of the invention (see T 133/85, OJ EPO 1988, 441, point 2, and T 409/91, OJ EPO 1994, 653, point 3.2). In the present case, the Respondents failed to identify any technical feature to be regarded as an essential feature of the claimed invention and not forming part of present Claim 1, nor could the Board find any such feature.
}

T 0583/93 citing T 0409/91:
{
  [1,1] = Zweitens muß ein Anspruch alle Merkmale enthalten, die zur Definition der Erfindung, für die Schutz begehrt wird, erforderlich sind. Mit anderen Worten: die technischen Merkmale, die eine Erfindung in den Ansprüchen definieren, müssen dieselben sein, die in der Beschreibung als wesentlich hervorgehoben werden (T 133/85, ABl. EPA 1988, 411; T 409/91, ABl. EPA 1994, 653). In diesem Erfordernis spiegelt sich der allgemeine Rechtsgrundsatz wider, wonach der Umfang des durch ein Patent verliehenen Ausschließungsrechts nur dann als im Sinne des Artikels 84 EPÜ von der Beschreibung gestützt anzusehen ist, wenn er dem Beitrag zum Stand der Technik entspricht.
}

T 0118/01 citing T 0409/91:
{
  [1,1] = (ii.3) The scope of the claim was not commensurate with the technical contribution to the art. There was only one example (packed column with Raschig rings) of how to perform the alleged invention but it was not determined whether the flow inversion was indeed totally avoided. There was also no indication in the specification as to how the teaching of this example could be generalized to other reactors and to other mechanical means for promoting turbulence. In that respect reference was made to the decisions T 409/91 (OJ EPO 1994, 653) and T 923/92 (OJ EPO, 1996, 564).
  [1,2] = 5.8. The argument submitted by the Respondent in respect to the decisions T 409/91 and T 923/92 is not convincing, since the facts on which these decisions were based are not comparable with those of the present case.
  [1,3] = 5.9. As indicated in T 409/91 (cf. Reasons 3.4.) the description of the application under consideration disclosed only one possibility of obtaining the desired particle size, ie the use of very specific additives, but did not contain any guidance enabling the skilled person to find other suitable additives being capable of producing the desired effect (ie obtaining small wax crystals). Furthermore, in that case, the Appellant itself admitted that it was not aware of any general knowledge which might have enabled the skilled person to find further ways to obtained the desired effect.
  [1,4] = 5.10. On the contrary, in the present case, as indicated above in paragraph 5.7, the skilled person would find further ways than the use of a reactor packed which Raschig rings to carry out the invention. Thus, the decision T 409/91 is of no relevance in the present case.
}

T 0440/02 citing T 0409/91:
{
  [1,1] = 2.1. Gemäß ständiger Rechtsprechung der Beschwerdekammern ist das Erfordernis der Ausführbarkeit nur dann erfüllt, wenn die in den unabhängigen Ansprüchen definierte Erfindung durch einen Fachmann im gesamten beanspruchten Bereich ausgeführt werden kann (siehe Entscheidungen T 409/91, ABl. EPA 1994, 653, Punkt 3.5; T 435/91, ABl. EPA 1995, 188, Punkt 2.2.1; T 534/96, Punkt 4, nicht veröffentlicht in ABl. EPA). Dieser Grundsatz gilt für jede Erfindung ungeachtet dessen, wie sie anspruchsgemäß definiert ist, sei es etwa in Form eines Stoffanspruches oder, wie hier, eines Verwendungsanspruches.
}

T 1124/02 citing T 0409/91:
{
  [1,1] = In its communication to the parties of 16 December 2004 in preparation for the oral proceedings, the Board expressed its doubts regarding the correctness of the reasoning of the Opposition Division. Referring to T 409/91 (OJ EPO 1994, 653) it noted, however, that the claimed viscosity range led to a related problem, namely whether the patent disclosed the invention over the whole ambit of claim 1.
  [1,2] = VII. In the oral proceedings the Appellant endorsed the above mentioned preliminary opinion of the Board. The ground for opposition pursuant to Article 100(b) EPC had been raised in the opposition proceedings, had been discussed in the decision under appeal and thus could be pursued by it on appeal, with the same or with different arguments, irrespective of who provided them. Claim 1 of both requests did not include any of the essential design parameters of the drum, which governed tests 6 and 7, the only tests in which the problem the patent claimed to solve was actually solved. These essential parameters should be mentioned in the claim. Otherwise it covered an undefined number of possible design configurations of the equilibration means, for which the patent did not provide the skilled person with sufficient information (see T 409/91, supra). One example could suffice for the purposes of Article 83 EPC, however, only if the skilled person was enabled to extend the teaching provided by that example to all embodiments covered by the claim. That was not the case here.
  [1,3] = 3.3 According to the consistent case law of the Boards of Appeal (see T 409/91, supra, Reasons, point 3.5) the disclosure of a claimed invention in a patent is only sufficient if it enables the skilled person to obtain substantially all embodiments falling within the ambit of the claim.
}

T 1008/03 citing T 0409/91:
{
  [1,1] = In fact, the objection raised by the Appellant is rather an objection under Article 84 EPC since the Appellant considers that not all features necessary to define the invention are present in claim 1 (see decision T 409/91, OJ 1994, 653, point 3.2 of the reasons).
}

T 0094/05 citing T 0409/91:
{
  [1,1] = Dadurch soll sichergestellt werden, dass der durch den Inhalt der Patentansprüche bestimmte Schutzbereich eines Patents dem technischen Beitrag entspricht, den die tatsächlich offenbarte Erfindung zum Stand der Technik leistet. In anderen Worten, die Ansprüche dürfen sich nur auf einen Gegenstand erstrecken, der einem Fachmann nach dem Lesen der Beschreibung zugänglich ist (siehe auch T 409/91, 3.3; ABl. EPA 1994, 653 und T 435/91, 2.2.1; ABl. EPA 1995, 188).
}

T 0369/05 citing T 0409/91:
{
  [1,1] = 3.3 It is the established jurisprudence of the Boards of Appeal that the requirements of sufficiency of disclosure are only met if the invention as defined in the independent claim can be performed by a person skilled in the art in the whole area claimed without undue burden, using common general knowledge and having regard to further information given in the patent in suit (see decisions T 409/91, OJ EPO 1994, 653, point 3.5 of the reasons; T 435/91, OJ EPO 1995, 188, point 2.2.1 of the reasons). That principle applies to any invention irrespective of the way in which it is defined, be it by way of a functional feature or not. The peculiarity of the functional definition of a technical feature resides in the fact that it is defined by means of its effect. That mode of definition comprises an indefinite and abstract host of possible alternatives, which is acceptable as long as all alternatives are available and achieve the desired result. Therefore, it has to be established whether or not the patent in suit discloses a technical concept fit for generalisation which makes available to the person skilled in the art the host of variants encompassed by the functional definition of a technical feature in that claim.
}