GL F IV 6.3 Objection of lack of support

As a general rule, a claim is regarded as supported by the description unless there are well-founded reasons for believing that the skilled person would be unable, on the basis of the information given in the application as filed, to extend the particular teaching of the description to the whole of the field claimed by using routine methods of experimentation or analysis.

GL F IV 6.2 Extent of generalisation

Most claims are generalisations from one or more particular examples. The extent of generalisation permissible is a matter which the division must judge in each particular case in the light of the relevant prior art. Thus an invention which opens up a whole new field is entitled to more generality in the claims than one which is concerned with advances in a known technology. A fair statement of claim is one which is not so broad that it goes beyond the invention nor yet so narrow as to deprive the applicant of a just reward for the disclosure of his invention.

GL F IV 6.1 General remarks

The claims must be supported by the description. This means that there must be a basis in the description for the subject-matter of every claim and that the scope of the claims must not be broader than is justified by the extent of the description and drawings and also the contribution to the art (see T 409/91). Regarding the support of dependent claims by the description, see F‑IV, 6.6.[Art. 84; ]

GL F IV 6 Support in description

6.1 General remarks

6.2 Extent of generalisation

6.3 Objection of lack of support

6.4 Lack of support vs. insufficient disclosure

6.5 Definition in terms of function

GL F IV 5 Conciseness, number of claims

The requirement that the claims must be concise refers to the claims in their entirety as well as to the individual claims. The number of claims must be considered in relation to the nature of the invention the applicant seeks to protect. Undue repetition of wording, e.g. between one claim and another, is to be avoided by the use of the dependent form. Regarding independent claims in the same category, see F‑IV, 3.2 and 3.3.

GL F IV 4.24 Interpretation of terms such as identity and similarity in relation to amino or nucleic acid sequences

Amino acid or nucleic acid sequences can be defined by a percentage of identity. The percentage of identity determines the number of identical residues over a defined length in a given alignment.

GL F IV 4.23 Order of claims

There is no legal requirement that the first claim must be the broadest. However, Art. 84 requires that the claims must be clear not only individually but also as a whole. Therefore, where there are a large number of claims, they need to be arranged with the broadest claim first.

GL F IV 4.22 Broad claims

The Convention does not explicitly mention overly broad claims.

GL F IV 4.21 Functional definition of a pathological condition

When a claim is directed to a further therapeutic application of a medicament and the condition to be treated is defined in functional terms, e.g. "any condition susceptible of being improved or prevented by selective occupation of a specific receptor", the claim can be regarded as clear only if instructions, in the form of experimental tests or testable criteria, are available from the patent documents or from the common general knowledge allowing the skilled person to recognise which conditions fall within the functional definition and accordingly within the scope of the

GL F IV 4.20 "Comprising" vs. "consisting of"

A claim directed to an apparatus/method/product "comprising" certain features is interpreted as meaning that it includes those features, but that it does not exclude the presence of other features, as long as they do not render the claim unworkable.

On the other hand, if the wording "consist of" is used, then no further features are present in the apparatus/method/product apart from the ones following said wording.