Examples of using Technical teaching in English and their translations into German
{-}
-
Colloquial
-
Official
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Medicine
-
Financial
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Political
-
Computer
-
Programming
-
Official/political
-
Political
Only a disclosure of both the disease andthe subject to be treated represented a complete technical teaching.
This could necessitate a redefinition of the technical problem underlying the technical teaching originally considered with all the negative consequences pointed out in G 2/98 loc.
Only a disclosure from which both the disease and the subject to betreated are clear represent a complete technical teaching.
The EPC wasconcerned with ensuring that applicants gave a proper technical teaching in return for the monopoly granted.
In particular, the claimed definition of the dosage regime must therefore not only be verbally different from what was described in the state of the art butalso reflect a different technical teaching.
On the contrary, it pre-supposed that the priority document also provided an adequate technical teaching in respect of said subject-matter and that this was the"same" teaching as that of the European patent.
What has to be established in the examination as to novelty is whether the state of the art is likely to reveal thecontent of the invention's subject-matter to the skilled person in a technical teaching.
The Federal Patent Court had neglected to investigate the technical teaching in claim1 in context and merely reached separate findings on the semantic content of individual features when assessing novelty.
In addition, in the board's opinion, a skilled person would, having regard to these considerations, have seriously contemplated applying the technical teaching of this prior art document in the range of overlap.
As to the second prerequisite(that the technical teaching of the chosen definition has to be clear and repeatable), it seems to be evident that the wording of a claim has to be understood in connection with the description.
The process should be considered outside of Article 53(b) EPC 1973 if it represents- when seen as a whole-a reproducible, technical teaching, even if such process consists completely of biological steps.
If a product claim does not specify any particular plant variety, but a technical teaching which can be embodied in an unspecified number of plant varieties, the subject-matter of the claimed invention does not relate to a plant variety or varieties within the meaning of Art.
The Board fully agrees with the decision mentioned by the respondents(see paragraph V(d) above), thatthe disclosure of a patent is sufficient, provided that during its lifetime the technical teaching can be repeated;
The Court found that it already disclosed everything taught in the patent,which did not contain any specific technical teaching different from that of prior-art patent EP 0 285 382, and therefore was not novel.
It was also argued that the gold standard defined in G 3/89 and G 11/91 should be considered fulfilled if the subject-matter remaining after the introduction of an undisclosed disclaimer ora disclosed disclaimer did not provide new technical information or a new technical teaching.
One amicus curiae favoured modifying the gold standard so as to take into account whether or not any new technical information ornew technical teaching could be derived from a claim as amended by an undisclosed disclaimer.
Thus, in conclusion, this document does not provide any further technical teaching in comparison with document(10) but merely confirms what was already known from document(10), namely that local immunity at the intestinal level is essential for protection against CCV infection.
In order to meet this requirement, therefore, a European patent must contain sufficient information for a personskilled in the art, using his common general knowledge, to recognise the technical teaching embodied in the claimed invention and carry it out accordingly.
In its reasoning, the board heldthat the limitation to non-human animals did not provide any new technical teaching and the skilled person was not presented in the application as filed with any new disclosure which went beyond the application as originally filed point 8.1.1 of the reasons.
For the interpretation of Article 123(2) EPC, it may be concluded from the foregoing(point 2.1.1) that the purpose of a disclaimer excluding a conflicting application is merely to take account of the fact that different applicants are entitled to patents in respect of different aspects of inventive subject-matter andnot to change the given technical teaching.
A related butmore limited question is whether a feature with a technical meaning contributes to the technical teaching in the application or to the subject-matter of the claimed invention, a question dealt with in decisions G 1/93 and G 2/98 supra.
Therefore, in assessing the novelty of the invention under examination over the prior art in a case where overlapping ranges of a certain parameter exist, it has to be considered whether the person skilled in the art would in the light of thetechnical facts seriously contemplate applying the technical teaching of the prior art document in the range of overlap.
According to the Court's established case law, that meant that the skilled person had tobe able to derive the new application's technical teaching directly and unambiguously from the previous one as a possible embodiment of the invention Federal Court of Justice judgment XZR107/12- Communication channel.
Whether any valid conclusions as to how a main claim and its terms were to be understood could be drawn from the subject-matter of a dependent claim also depended on the specific circumstances of the case,in particular on what precisely it proposed to add to the main claim's technical teaching and how this supplemented that claim's subject-matter.
In order to determine whether the claimed method step in itself imparted a clear, credible technical teaching, it was necessary to examine"whether(a) the step as claimed is in itself meaningful and plausible from a technical point of view, and(b) there is, prima facie, any inherent incompatibility with the remaining features of the claim" see decision T1202/07.
Article 54 EPC has to be interpreted in the sense that anything comprised in the state of the art can only be regarded as having been made available to the public in so far as the information given to the person skilled in theart is sufficient to enable him to practise the technical teaching which is the subject of the disclosure, taking into account also the general knowledge in the field to be expected of him.
The assessment whether or not a breeding process represents a technical teaching should be performed as defined by the established case law of the EPO Boards of Appeal and has to focus especially on the criteria of enablement and reproducibility, since enablement and reproducibility are at least intrinsic prerequisites for a technical character.
When examining for novelty, it should be taken into consideration that any information in a patentspecification which conveys to the person skilled in the art a technical teaching belongs to the content of the disclosure irrespective of whether or not it falls within the scope of the claims or what purpose it serves.
In response to the third question referred to it by the German Federal Supreme Court, the ECJ concluded that Article 6(2)(c)Biotech Directive excluded an invention from patentability where the technical teaching which was the subject-matter of the patent application required the prior destruction of human embryos or their use as base material, whatever the stage at which that took place and even if the description of the technical teaching claimed did not refer to the use of human embryos.
When applying the gold standard to an undisclosed disclaimer it was essential to examine whether the subject-matter remaining in the claim after the introduction of the disclaimer was disclosed in the application as filed,whether the original technical teaching had been changed by that disclaimer, and whether the introduction of negative, rather than positive, features had given an unwarranted advantage to the applicant or patent proprietor.