This is an appeal by the patent proprietor against the maintenance of its patent on the basis of the first auxiliary request.
In a first appeal decision on the same patent (T 894/05), the Board had remitted the case to the first instance with the order to maintain the patent in amended form. Claim 1 of the allowed request read:
A refrigerant composition which comprises:(a) 46% by weight based on the weight of the composition of pentafluoroethane,(b) 50% by weight based on the weight of the composition of 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane and(c) 4% by weight based on the weight of the composition of n-butane.
Upon remittal, the patent proprietor filed two sets of amended pages of the description as a main request and an auxiliary request, respectively. In the decision now under appeal, the Opposition Division (OD) found that the amended description according to the main request did not comply with A 84, since the sentence “It is clear that similar comments apply to the composition R125 - 46.5%, R134A - 50% and R600 - 3.5%” had not been deleted. The description was thus not properly adapted to the limitations carried out in the amended claims. The amended description according to auxiliary request 1 differed from the description according to the main request only in that said sentence was deleted.
 In order to meet the requirement of A 84 that the claims have to be supported by the description, the adaptation of the description to amended claims must be performed carefully in order to avoid inconsistencies between the claims and the description which could render the scope of the claims unclear. Any disclosure in the description inconsistent with the amended subject-matter should normally be excised. Reference to embodiments no longer covered by amended claims must be deleted, unless these embodiments can reasonably be considered to be useful for highlighting specific aspects of the amended subject-matter. In such a case, the fact that an embodiment is not covered by the claims must be prominently stated (see T 1808/06).
 In the present case, the dispute between the parties concerns only the question of whether or not the sentence “It is clear that similar comments apply to the composition R125 - 46.5%, R134A - 50% and R600 - 3.5%” on page 4, lines 6 to 7 of the description of the patent in suit may be retained, namely whether or not it is consistent with the amended claims found by the Board to meet the requirements of the EPC.
 Claim 1 as remitted to the OD relates to a refrigerant composition comprising by weight (a) 46% pentafluoroethane (R125), (b) 50% 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (R134A) and (c) 4% n-butane (R600).
 The Appellant argued that retention of the contested sentence was justified because the composition “R125 - 46.5%, R134A - 50% and R600 - 3.5%” defined in the contested sentence fell under amended claim 1, since the skilled person would not understand amended claim 1 as relating to a single specific composition only, but rather as extending to ranges of plus or minus 0.5% in relation to each of the three specifically defined amounts of 46, 50 and 4%, for R125, R134A and R600, respectively.
[5.1] However, the Board, holds that the composition R125 - 46.5%, R134A - 50%, R600 - 3.5% does not fall under the subject-matter of claim 1 of the patent in suit, since claim 1 defines a refrigerant composition defined in terms of specific percentage weight amounts, namely 46, 50 and 4%, the description of the patent in suit not providing the skilled person with any reason to understand these specific percentage weight amounts as extending to plus or minus 0.5%. On the contrary, the patent in suit, when defining the percentage weight amounts of the components of the refrigerant compositions described therein, quite clearly differentiates between values which differ by 0.5%.
The sentence in question is an example therefor, as it compares a composition comprising 46.5% of R125, 50% of R134A and 3.5% of R600 with the composition of Example 1 comprising 46% of R125, 50% of R134A and 4% of R600, these two compositions also being distinguished in the table on page 4, lines 10 to 16 of the application as filed. Comparative Examples 2 and 3 on page 4 of the patent in suit, wherein the amounts of R125 and R600a differ by 0.5%, further illustrate the fact that the patent in suit distinguishes between percentage weight amounts of components of refrigerant compositions differing by 0.5%. Contrary to the argumentation of the Appellant, claim 1 does indeed relate to a specific composition, as supported by the description wherein the amounts of 46% of R125 and 4% of R600 in claim 1 find support in the application as filed as one of the “specific formulations” (emphasis added) described on page 4, lines 10 to 16 and in the particular formulation of Example 1, only, there being no suggestion in the patent specification that these amounts are approximate values, let alone that they extend to plus or minus 0.5%.
[5.2] The Board is thus not convinced by the Appellant’s arguments and as a consequence holds that retention of the contested sentence on page 4 of the patent in suit leads to unclarity of the subject-matter claimed, as it could suggest to the reader, contrary to the facts of the case, that the claims embrace said composition.
 By virtue of this sentence on page 4, lines 6 to 7 of the patent specification, the amended version of the specification according to the main request on which the contested decision was based cannot be allowed. […]
The appeal is dismissed.
Should you wish to download the whole decision, just click here.
The file wrapper can be found here.