The Board of Appeal decided that the following applies as regards to sufficiency of disclosure: (1) the skilled person should be able to realise without undue burden substantially any embodiment falling in the ambit of a claim on the basis of the disclosure and/or common general knowledge; (2) the objection of lack of sufficient disclosure presupposes that there are serious doubts, substantiated by verifiable facts; (3) it depends on the evidence available in each case whether or not a claimed invention can be considered as enabled on basis of the disclosure of one worked example; (4) the mere fact that a claim is broad is not in itself a ground for considering the application as not fulfilling the requirements of sufficient disclosure.

The full summary of this case has been published on Kluwer IP Law.


Kluwer IP Law
This page as PDF