|
1. When an essential ingredient comprised in a chemical
composition is open to be labelled arbitrarily "active
ingredient" or not depending exclusively on the mental label the
user wishes to apply, thereby rendering the meaning of that
feature protean, then the public is left in doubts as to the
distinction which compositions are covered by the claim and
which are not, which is at variance with the principle of legal
certainty. Because of that lack of legal certainty, the claim
fails to meet the requirement of clarity imposed by Article 84
EPC. (reasons point 4.1.2.2)
2. The absence from the independent claim of any upper limit on
the amount of a particular component in the chemical composition
claimed, is at variance with the aim of the invention as set out
in the description; hence that claim is so broad that it goes
beyond the scope of the invention as disclosed in the
description. Therefore, the requirement of Article 84, second
sentence, EPC, that the claims must be supported by the
description is not meet. (reasons point 4.2)
|
