Source: https://dp-patentlaw.blogspot.com/2016/10/t-43714-new-questions-on-disclaimers.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 09:57:44+00:00

Document:
wherein the ligand FORMULA/TABLE/GRAPHIC is an alpha-amino acid residue selected from glycine, L-alanine, L-valine, D-leucine, L-proline, or L-phenylalanine,"
- disclaim subject-matter which, under Articles 52 to 57 EPC, is excluded from patentability for non-technical reasons.
" ... by introducing into claim 2 the compositional restrictions, which are exclusively based on document D1 rather than on the technical disclosure of the application, the skilled person is confronted with new subject-matter that he cannot derive clearly and unambiguously from the application as originally filed. To give an example, it is noted that the upper limit of less than 50% niobium now featuring in claim 1 is not disclosed anywhere in the application as filed and neither are the limits of less than 0.5% Zr and more than 5% Zr. It follows from the above considerations, that the disclaimer of claim 2 of the auxiliary request 1 does not satisfy the requirements of Article 123(2) EPC. Hence claim 2 of the new main request is not allowable"
(point 2.2.3 of the reasons).
wherein the ligand FORMULA/TABLE/GRAPHIC is an alpha-amino acid residue selected from glycine (structure 16), L-alanine (structure 17), L-valine (structure 18), D-leucine (structure 19), L-proline (structure 20), or L-phenylalanine (structure 21).
This decision T 0437/14 (pdf) has European Case Law Identifier:ECLI:EP:BA:2016:T043714.20161017. The file wrapper can be found here. Photo by stevepb via Pixabay under a CC0 license (no changes made).
It was to be expected that the question about of the successive application of G 1/03 and G 2/10 would be referred to the EBA.
G 1/03 applies to undisclosed disclaimers. They are used either to restore novelty over a prior art under Art 54 (3), or an accidental anticipation or on items that fall under an exception to patentability under Art 52 57 for non-technical reasons.
G 2/10 applies to the disclaimers relating to embodiments of the invention. G 2/10 can be summarized as follows: If A-B is disclosed, a disclaimer for C-D (included in A-B) is only possible if A-C and D-B can be derived directly and unambiguously original documents.
If after deciding according G 1/03 that the undisclosed disclaimer is admissible and well founded, then applying G 2/10 is like asking that what is left in the application or patent is directly and unambiguously derivable from the original disclosure.
If the undisclosed disclaimer is on C-D applying G 2/10 leads to introduce the additional condition that A-C and D-B must be derivable directly and unambiguously original documents. Which is to say that the undisclosed disclaimer should actually be disclosed. As it is not in essence, and a fiction was created in G 1/03, making it patentable. The successive application of G 1/03 and G 2/10 could actually mean the death of G 1/03. This is the meaning of Question 2.
In the cited decisions, T 748/09 concluded that the successive application of G 1/03 and G 2/10 makes disclaimer not patentable.
Other decisions have come to the same conclusion, cf. T 336/12, T 1441/13. In T 1839/11, the BA denied admissibility of a late request because it did not want to discuss the “interplay” between G 1/03 and G 2/10, although it acknowledged that in T 2464/10 such disclaimers had been discussed and accepted. It also quoted T 1049/08.
In all decisions T 1176/09, T 1872/14 and T 2018/08 the successive application of G 1/03 and G 2/10 showed that the disclaimers were patentable.
It should be noted that in cases in which a disclaimer after application of G 1/03 + G 2/10 was considered patentable, the application of G 1/03 was for objects that fell under an exception to patentability under Article 52 to 57 for non-technical reasons.
It is certainly a justifiable exception that might be part of the answer to question 3.
However a disclaimer meant to restore novelty over a prior art under Art 54 (3), or an accidental anticipation, does not resist the successive application of G 1/03 and G 2/10. If the G 1/03 must retain some sense, here is another desirable exception, and a further possible answer to question 3. The applicant of the subsequent application cannot be penalized twice.
The bets about the answers are open.
In my view, G1/93 has already put it quite well in the 2. headnote: "A feature which has not been disclosed in the application as filed but which has been added to the application during examination and which, without providing a technical contribution to the subject-matter of the claimed invention, merely limits the protection conferred by the patent as granted by excluding protection for part of the subject-matter of the claimed invention as covered by the application as filed, is not to be considered as subject-matter which extends beyond the content of the application as filed in the sense of Article 123(2) EPC.".
I take the position that this headnote (originally refering to "positive" features recited in a claim) should apply to disclaimers (reciting "negative" features in a claim) as well. Thus, the most important question to be asked in my view is whether the feature incorporated into a claim (be it positive or negative) has a technical contribution to the subject-matter of the claimed invention, i.e. is relevant for assessing inventive step and/or sufficiency of disclosure.
If yes, it is inadmissible because then, the introduction of the feature would be an advantage for the applicant/proprietor which is not justified.
If no, the introduced feature only Limits the scope of protection and in this case, the applicant/proprietor should have the freedom to do that (for whatever reason).
By the way, I have the impression that the term "disclosed disclaimer" in the first question referred to the EBoA is a misnomer. In fact, it seems that an undisclosed disclaimer directed to a disclosed feature is meant (?). In my view, a disclosed disclaimer is e.g. if the original application states in a claim or the General part of the description: "In a preferred embodiment, the metal is a noble metal except gold". In this case, incorporation of this disclaimer should not violate A. 123(2) EPC. Moreover, this disclaimer may well have a technical contribution to the subject-matter of the claimed Invention (e.g. if all noble metals except gold have a special technical effect in the context of the claimed subject-matter).
In any case, I am looking forward to the next decision of the EBoaA.
G2/10 is fairly recent (5 years old) and refers extensively to G1/03. Failing to overturn G1/03 was not an oversight. It seems unlikely they would reverse themselves so quickly. I therefore expect the discussion will turn on the technical contribution of the disclaimer, or lack thereof.
The exceptions in G1/03 cannot play a role in inventive step. They remove an apple from the bag. A disclaimer that has a technical contribution takes a bite out of the apple. You are left with something else then before. In this case, the disclaimer must be derivable from the application.
G 1/93 seems to say that non-technical limitations are always ok. But I don’t think applicants who relied on this to defend their added subject matter problems have fared very well in the past. If the enlarged board does not overturn G1/03 do they then run the risk of breathing new live in G1/93 with a relaxed interpretation of A.123 as the result?
I doubt that the EBA will breathe new life in G 1/93 and overturn G 1/03.
In G 3/14 the EBA did not overturn the long standing case law on clarity in opposition. It just confirmed the standard that in opposition, clarity can only be considered in the light of amendments, whereby the clarity of a combination of granted claims cannot be challenged.
It should be remembered that G 1/93 is the decision on the inescapable trap. When one sees the way case law of the BA related to added subject-matter has become more severe with the year, I doubt that a relaxed interpretation of Art 123(2)will come out of this referral. The line of case law will be confirmed, certainly not weakened, although this is a wish of many representatives and applicants/proprietors. That some divisions have become very formalistic in the matter and have to be brought on the right track is a different matter which cannot be equated with a relaxed interpretation of Art 123(2).
In G 1/03 the BA held that a disclaimer restoring novelty vis-à-vis a prior art under Art 54(3) (Reasons 2.1.3) or an accidental anticipation (reasons 2.2.2) makes no technical contribution to the invention as claimed, so that it does not infringe Art 123(2) and is in line with G 1/93. The same applies to exceptions to patentability under Art 52-57. Any other disclaimer makes a technical contribution.
Thinking of disclaimers not making a contribution and to keep might not be wrong, but I doubt this would help solving the problem.
1) When applying G 1/03, i.e. the undisclosed disclaimers, then a chunk has to be taken off the apple.
1.a) That chunk can correspond first to a piece of prior art under Art 54(3) or to an accidental disclosure, and the disclaimer is there to restore novelty.
1.b) The chunk can also correspond to subject-matter excluded from patentability for non-technical reasons, i.e. according to Art 52 to 57.
1.c) In both cases the apple is not the same after having taken the chunk out. Strictly speaking, the dimension of the chunk was not known in advance, so there is actually added subject-matter, but the EBA created a fiction by stating that the chunk taken out does not make a technical contribution to the apple.
1.d) This is however not what matters as the EBA has created a fiction, the undisclosed disclaimer. When the undisclosed disclaimer relates to subject-matter excluded from patentability for non-technical reasons, then G 2/10 could apply, although as such it could possibly not have been part of the original disclosure, but refers to the "golden standard".
2) When applying G 2/10, the chunk as also to be taken out the apple. What G 2/10 says is that the boundaries of the chunk have to be known in advance, otherwise there is added matter. This is perfectly coherent.
2.a) When the chunk taken out of the apple corresponds to subject-matter excluded from patentability for non-technical reasons, i.e. according to Art 52 to 57, then in my opinion G 2/10 should apply.
2.b) For example, if a method can be used as a medical method, as well as in a non-medical field, then the applicant/proprietor can only limit himself to the non-medical part and disclaim the medical method if the non-medical use was disclosed as such in the original disclosure. If the non-medical use was not disclosed as such, then claiming the non-medical part of the method is indeed not directly and unambiguously derivable from the original disclosure.
2.c) If like in T 780/89 ( Bayer), T 116/85 ( Pigs I, Wellcome), or T 144/83 (Naltrexone) when the non-medical effect is distinguishable, then a disclaimer might not even be necessary, see T 469/94 (MIT) or T 36/83 (Roussel-Uclaf).
3) If the both the medical and non-medical application have been disclosed, then disclaiming the medical part under G 1/03 is perfectly applicable. What is left has however to have been disclosed originally, i.e. the successive application of G 1/03 and G 2/10 makes sense.
In that respect I would like to draw attention to a decision of the "Cour d'Appel de Paris“ ( 4th Chamber, 29.10.97). The use of a laser for opening of the root canal of a tooth was only disclosed in this context. The applicant explained that any obstruction in any type of conduit, not just the root canal of a tooth, but this was not disclosed. Here G 2/10 would have been perfectly applicable.
4) The successive application of G 1/03 and G 2/10 does not make any sense when we are in presence of a non-disclosed disclaimer meant to restore novelty according to G 1/03.
4.a) If this would be the stance adopted by the EBA, then indeed G 1/03 is dead. I however do not see that the EBA will easily throw over board a long line of case law about undisclosed disclaimers.
4.b) That some jurisdictions in Contracting States have not accepted them is a different matter.
No need to refer to a bunch of apples, on apple with chuck taken out is good enough to define the problem and find a solution.
The bets are still open!
> The bets are still open!
I've added an (anonymous) poll to the front page. So anyone who thinks he can predict the Enlarged board can enter the poll.
Have I missed a possible response? Let me know.
"In G 1/03 the BA held that a disclaimer restoring novelty vis-à-vis a prior art under Art 54(3) (Reasons 2.1.3) or an accidental anticipation (reasons 2.2.2) makes no technical contribution to the invention as claimed, so that it does not infringe Art 123(2) and is in line with G 1/93. The same applies to exceptions to patentability under Art 52-57. Any other disclaimer makes a technical contribution."
To me, it is more the other way around: the board held "54(3) disclaimers" and "52-57 disclaimers" that do not make a technical contribution not unallowable. This does not mean, that any disclaimer meant as a "54(3) disclaimer" or a "52-57 disclaimer" is by definition allowable. That depends on whether or not they make a technical contribution.
In case a technical contribution is made, a disclaimer is not allowed, even in the case that the disclaimer restores novelty vis-a-vis a prior art document under 54(3), or if it disclaims unpatentable subject matter.
In case of an accidental anticipation, a technical contribution is not allowed either. In that case, however, the "technical contribution" discussion is held in terms of whether or not the anticipation is accidental. A disclaimer to "accidental" subject matter by definition lacks a technical contribution, as the subject matter would not have been considered by the skilled person anyway.
I agree with the comment of 18:37. A change of standard in the appreciation of added subject-matter is not going to happen - think also of the ricochet effect on e.g. novelty. I am also very unconformtable with the discussion on features making a technical contribution and those which do not; that smells like the snackfood case law to me; G2/98 also said "a distinction is made in decision T 73/88 [...] between technical features which are related to the function and effect of the invention and technical features which are not. This approach is problematic because there are no suitable and clear, objective criteria for making such a distinction; it could thus give rise to arbitrariness" (of course for priority but the test should be the same for 123(2)). G1/93 is better left to case of A.123(2)/(3) traps in my mind.
2. rule that any amendment violating A. 123(2) may still be admissible in the case it does not have a technical contribution, i.e. in other words a legal fiction is created which deems the amendment admissible in such a case (see also G1/93, 2nd heatnote: "...is NOT TO BE CONSIDERED as subject-matter which extends beyond the content of the application as filed in the sense of Article 123(2) EPC").
In my view, the solution could form a Bridge between all three G decisions, but it still suffers the problem that it would have to be defined what a technical contribution actually is (in each case). Once this is defined, a further disadvantage seems to be that a discussion about rather formal requirements extends to a discussion about rather substantial requirements.
I'm looking forward to the decision as well. It will be interesting to see how they manage this one.

References: Art 54
 Art 52
 Art 54
 Art 123
 Art 123
 Art 54
 Art 123
 Art 52
 Art 54
 Art 52
 Art 52
 Art 54
 Art 123
 Art 52