In the case at problem the purpose of the innovation a€“ particularly increasing the selectivity to TCS a€“ is simply achieved by the addition of chosen amounts of chromium to silicon thereby this feature wasn’t “closely pertaining to additional properties from the functioning instance and relates right and unambiguously into more common perspective” as required in T . The existing decision was also consistent with T . They implemented that the picking out on the worth 550 ppm from the operating sample 3 was consequently clearly appropriate in case at problems, with all the effect your specifications of ways. 123(2) EPC happened to be achieved.
1.3 Specialized sum a€“ extension or removal of an element
In T the board emphasised your standard wherein a modification need to be immediately and unambiguously derivable, using typical general knowledge, and viewed fairly and relative to the go out of filing, through the complete for the application as submitted, stays a pre-requisite for judging any modification with respect to the element ways. 123(2) EPC. Thus, the “relevance”, as a result, of the technical data is perhaps not worth addressing for deciding upon the matter of ways. 123(2) EPC. In the case at concern it can furthermore not accepted by board that whenever a skilled people used his usual basic knowledge, he would subsequently get to the mixture of attributes in claim 11 of auxiliary request 2.
Absolutely nothing was in fact filed by the appellant (proprietor) to compliment this argument, nor is these facts derivable from the software as filed. The appellant’s (manager’s) discussion that a skilled individual would understand what details comprise technically relevant to the invention when incorporating specific additional structural functions to the claim had been entirely subjective.
They hence accompanied that the introduction into state 11 of the first and second properties triggered the skilled people being offered another mixture off properties (i.e.