Any inconsistency between the description and the claims should be avoided if it may throw doubt on the extent of protection and therefore render the claim unclear or unsupported under Art. 84, second sentence or, alternatively, render the claim objectionable under Art. 84, first sentence. Such inconsistency can be of the following kinds:
For example, there is a statement in the description which suggests that the invention is limited to a particular feature but the claims are not thus limited; also, the description places no particular emphasis on this feature and there is no reason for believing that the feature is essential for the performance of the invention. In such a case, the inconsistency can be removed either by broadening the description or by limiting the claims. Similarly, if the claims are more limited than the description, the claims may be broadened or the description may be limited.
For example, it may appear, either from general technical knowledge or from what is stated or implied in the description, that a certain described technical feature not mentioned in an independent claim is essential to the performance of the invention, or, in other words, is necessary for the solution of the problem to which the invention relates. In such a case, the claim does not meet the requirements of Art. 84, because Art. 84, first sentence, when read in conjunction with Rule 43(1) and Rule 43(3), has to be interpreted as meaning not only that an independent claim must be comprehensible from a technical point of view but also that it must clearly define the subject-matter of the invention, that is to say indicate all the essential features thereof (see T 32/82). If, in response to this objection, the applicant shows convincingly, e.g. by means of additional documents or other evidence, that the feature is in fact not essential, he may be allowed to retain the unamended claim and, where necessary, to amend the description instead. The opposite situation in which an independent claim includes features which do not seem essential for the performance of the invention is not objectionable. This is a matter of the applicant's choice. The examiner should therefore not suggest that a claim be broadened by the omission of apparently inessential features;
For example, the claims all specify an electric circuit employing semiconductor devices but one of the embodiments in the description and drawings employs electronic tubes instead. In such a case, the inconsistency can normally be removed either by broadening the claims (assuming that the description and drawings as a whole provide adequate support for such broadening) or by removing the "excess" subject-matter from the description and drawings. However, if examples and technical descriptions of apparatuses, products and/or methods in the description and/or drawings which are not covered by the claims are presented not as embodiments of the invention but as background art or examples useful for understanding the invention, the retention of these examples may be allowed.
The case under (iii) may frequently occur when, after a limitation of the claims following an invitation under Rule 62a(1) or Rule 63(1), the subject-matter excluded from the search is still present in the description. Unless the initial objection was not justified, such subject-matter should be objected to under Art. 84 (inconsistency between the claims and the description).
Furthermore, the case under (iii) will occur when, after a non-unity objection (Rule 64 or Rule 164), the claims have been limited to only one of the originally claimed inventions: the embodiments and/or examples of the non-claimed inventions must be either deleted or indicated as not being part of the invention.
Date retrieved: 24 November 2017