EP 2 562 413 B1 relates to a “Method of manufacturing a wind turbine blade shell members” using (pre) cured fibre-reinforced sheet materials. These materials are arranged as partially overlapping tiles near the outer surface of the blade shell, cf. paragraph [0001]. A curable resin is introduced between the elements, and the elements are bonded by curing the resin.
Brief outline of the case
The OD decided maintenance according to AR2 in opposition.
The board concluded that the subject-matter of claim 1 as granted was not new over D4/D4t=NL 8104019.
The board decided maintenance according to a new AR2.
When it comes to claim 1 as granted, the case is interesting in that it deals with the application of G 1/24 taking into account G 1/25and T 439/22-2.
The proprietor’ point of view
The proprietor argued that the extruded profiles of D4 are not disclosed as being cured before they are positioned in the mould.
The proprietor further argued that the term “sheet material” had to be understood in accordance with paragraph [0014] of the patent specification as mandatorily requiring a width-to-thickness ratio of at least 5:1. Relying on G 1/24 and T 439/22-2, it submitted that this passage contained a definition which had to be taken into account when interpreting claim 1.
The board’s decision
In G 1/25, the Enlarged Board confirmed, with reference inter alia to G 1/24 and T 439/22-2, that claim interpretation is a unitary process in which the claims, description and drawings are read together.
A definition in the description may determine the meaning attributed to a claim term; however, the description and drawings cannot be used to impose on the claim a limitation or expansion for which the claim wording provides no basis, cf. G 1/25, Reasons 10.
Against this background, the issue was whether paragraph [0014] contained a definition or a description. More specifically, does it define the term “sheet material”, or does it merely describe a feature of the sheet material disclosed in the patent?
A distinction must be made between defining the meaning of a term and describing properties of the subject-matter designated by that term. Patent specifications routinely describe properties of disclosed components without thereby defining the meaning of the terms used to designate them.
T 439/22-2, cited by the proprietor, supplies a concrete illustration of a definition which was then taken into account when interpreting the claim. The description the appellant proprietor argued that the dimensional relationship was not presented in paragraph [0014] as optional and must therefore form part of the definition of “sheet material”. expressly stated “As used herein, the term ‘sheet’ denotes …” This passage expressly assigned a particular meaning to the terms used in the claim.
This passage describes dimensional properties of the disclosed fibre-reinforced sheet material; it does not define what the term “sheet material” means. In particular, it does not state that “sheet material” means or denotes material having those dimensional relationships.
The ratio of at least 5:1 is therefore a feature attributed to the sheet material described in paragraph [0014], rather than part of the meaning of the term itself.
Patent specifications routinely describe the properties of disclosed components without thereby defining the meaning of the terms used to designate those components.
For example, a statement that “the two parts are joined by a joint, the joint being a screw” describes the particular form taken by the joint in the disclosed arrangement. It does not define the term “joint” as meaning “screw”. The fact that the screw is presented as a feature of the disclosed arrangement, rather than as an optional feature, does not alter this distinction.
Whether a feature described in the patent is presented as not optional does not determine whether it defines the meaning of a claim term. If every feature described without being identified as optional were necessarily read into the claims, the distinction between the function of the claims, which define the matter for which protection is sought under Art 84, and that of the description would largely disappear. This would also conflict with the principle confirmed in G 1/25, Reasons 10, that the description cannot be used to impose a limitation for which the claim wording provides no basis.
Accordingly, the board concluded that paragraph [0014] does not define “sheet material” as requiring a width-to-thickness ratio of at least 5:1. That ratio is a feature described in paragraph [0014] but not included in claim 1 and therefore does not limit the meaning of “sheet material” in that claim.
In view of the above considerations, it followed that D4 discloses all the features of claim 1.
Comments
The decision is important as it makes a clear distinction between the general definition of a claimed feature, here “sheet material”, without introducing in this definition limitations proper to the specific case, here a width-to-thickness ratio of at least 5:1.
In other words, for the skilled person, a “sheet material” does not necessarily has to have a width-to-thickness ratio of at least 5:1.
If the applicant/proprietor wants the limitation to have an effect vis-à-vis the prior art opposable to the claim, this limitation has to be incorporated into the claim.
The present decision confirms a whole series of decisions of the boards applying G 1/24 in which a limitation is not suggested by the wording of the claim, e.g. T 385/23 or T 977/25, or cannot be derived from specific embodiments in the description, e.g. T 1465/23 or T 2027/23.
Comments
Leave a comment