The Board of Appeal held that “Biogen insufficiency”, the situation in which the full extent of the monopoly claimed exceeds the technical contribution to the art, is not a distinct ground for invalidity from “classical insufficiency”. Further, the fact that a skilled person is not able to carry out the invention without using the disclosed specific implementation of a generic claim feature is in itself not sufficient to find insufficient disclosure.

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