In this case, the Board of Appeal had to decide whether a claim containing a feature for which the description contained erroneous figures only met the requirements of Article 83 EPC (sufficiency of disclosure) and Rule 27(1)(e) EPC 1973 (corresponding to Rule 42(1)(e) EPC 2000). The Board of Appeal decided that a patent application should always describe at least one way of carrying out the invention that can be understood by a skilled person. This requirement is laid down in both Article 83 EPC and Rule 27(1)(e) EPC 1973. The purpose of examples as mentioned in Rule 27(1)(e) EPC 1973 is primarily to complete an otherwise incomplete teaching. When the teaching is complete for a skilled person without the examples, the requirement of Rule 27(1)(e) EPC 1973 is fulfilled.

A 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.

Kluwer IP Law

The 2022 Future Ready Lawyer survey showed that 79% of lawyers think that the importance of legal technology will increase for next year. With Kluwer IP Law you can navigate the increasingly global practice of IP law with specialized, local and cross-border information and tools from every preferred location. Are you, as an IP professional, ready for the future?

Learn how Kluwer IP Law can support you.

Kluwer IP Law
This page as PDF