The Board observed that it could not be understood that the “technical relevance” criterion, proposed by another board in T 1906/11 for judging extension of subject matter, defines a new standard for judging amendments with respect to Article 123(2) in the case of intermediate generalizations. Instead, the Board had to decide whether the technical information inferred by the skilled person was new having regard to the content of the original application as filed.
Click here for the full text of this case.
A summary of this case will be posted on http://www.Kluweriplaw.com
________________________
To make sure you do not miss out on regular updates from the Kluwer Patent Blog, please subscribe here.
