tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post5294359064083703548..comments2023-10-24T14:45:41.342+02:00Comments on K’s Law: T 891/07 – On The Sufficiency Of Humanoidsorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07992102028406713066noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-90350312059056500332011-02-24T10:20:34.197+01:002011-02-24T10:20:34.197+01:00A short and quick comment on the A 83 part of the ...A short and quick comment on the A 83 part of the decision.<br /><br />That the invention be sufficiently disclosed over the whole breadth of the claims is a requirement that is reasonable when applied to Markush formulas, where most compounds exhibit a similar effect, or for claims containing ranges. In these cases the applicant relies on certain effects that should be present over the whole breadth (or at least most part) of the claim (one could consider the Markush formula or the range as being an implicit individualization). <br /><br />The situation with claims in which no defined ranges are claimed is somewhat different. For example, a claim to a layer of something (oxide, paint, etc) comprises in principle every thickness of that layer, even one that is several light years thick. It does not seem very reasonable to expect that the patent discloses how to realize such a layer's thickness and to refuse the application under A 83 for such failure. The difference to a claim relating to a layer having a thickness range between 1 and 10 µm is that a specific effect should be achieved in that range.<br /><br />As the board pointed out, a claim of the first, more general kind is much more susceptible of a novelty or inventiveness attack than the more specific claim. It is thus reasonable to require a higher degree of disclosure for the latter.pat-agoni-ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14383461539323071512noreply@blogger.com