EN

Four Step Approach in Determining Sufficiency of Disclosure of a Parameter under the EPC

Functional features or parameters can generate an objection under Art. 83 EPC (enablement) or Art. 84 EPC (clarity) in case of ambiguity of the term. However, the ambiguity of such a term is not, by itself, a reason to deny sufficiency of disclosure. What is decisive for establishing insufficiency is whether the functional feature or parameter is so ill-defined that the skilled person is not able to identify without undue burden the technical measures necessary to solve the underlying problem on the basis of the disclosure as a whole and using common general knowledge.

In a recent decision of April 2014, the Boards of Appeal of the EPO has confirmed an approach of a former decision of the Boards of Appeal to find out whether this condition for insufficiency of disclosure is met (T 2403/11). The approach contains the following four steps:


  • Identifying the problem to be solved by the invention in the patent/patent application (not in view of the closest prior art!).

  • Determining the relevance of the functional feature/parameter for solving this problem.

  • Analysing whether the functional feature/parameter is indeed ambiguous.

  • Analysing whether sufficiency of disclosure has to be denied due to this ambiguity, if any, and the relevance of the functional feature/parameter for solving the problem.

In the cited decision, the Boards of Appeal came to the conclusion that the viscosity of a claimed composition is not available as a selection criterion to identify suitable coating compositions that solve the problem underlying the opposed patent in view of its ambiguity. The skilled person has to identify suitable compositions by trial and error. Hence, the patent is nothing more than an invitation to perform a research program (Reasons No. 2.6).

Weitere Beiträge von Dr. Raphael Bösl

The “Druckexemplar” determines the extend of protection conferred by a European patent

Dr. Raphael Bösl

Restoration of the Right of Priority under the PCT – different “Criterion for Restoration” before the USPTO and the EPO

Dr. Raphael Bösl

License Fees for a Compulsory License – Isentress II – German Federal Patent Court

Dr. Raphael Bösl

Follow-up: Preliminary Injunction confirmed by the German Federal Supreme Court in a Compulsory License Proceedings concerning a Medicament against AIDS

Dr. Raphael Bösl

Preliminary Injunction confirmed by the German Federal Supreme Court in a Compulsory License Proceedings concerning a Medicament against AIDS

Dr. Raphael Bösl

EPO clarifies practice in the area of plant and animal patents

Dr. Raphael Bösl

EPO stays all proceedings in which the invention is a plant or animal obtained by an essentially biological process

Dr. Raphael Bösl

Communication from the Chairmen of the UPC Preparatory Committee and the EPO Select Committee dealing with the Unitary Patent of July 1, 2016

Dr. Raphael Bösl

Functional Features – Essential Features: A New Perspective under Article 84 EPC

Dr. Raphael Bösl

Plant Patent Protection and Plant Variety Protection – Two Independent IP Rights?

Dr. Raphael Bösl

A pitfall to supplement information incorporated by reference under the EPC

Dr. Raphael Bösl

EPO: claims directed to the use of a product produced by a process

Dr. Raphael Bösl

Enlarged Board of Appeal of the EPO decided on Clarity – expected decision now issued (G 3/14)

Dr. Raphael Bösl

Deautomation is not per se Inventive – an Exemption from the Rule under the EPC

Dr. Raphael Bösl

Four Step Approach in Determining Sufficiency of Disclosure of a Parameter under the EPC

Dr. Raphael Bösl

Refocus on the Interpretation of “Undue Burden” for the Determination of the Scope of Protection under the EPC

Dr. Raphael Bösl

Functional Definition of Compounds in Use Claims – Different Decisions in Germany and “Europe”

Dr. Raphael Bösl