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.
________________________
To make sure you do not miss out on regular updates from the Kluwer Patent Blog, please subscribe here.
