Proceeding Decision

1. The claim must not be limited to the scope of preferred embodiments. The scope of a claim extends to subject-matter that the skilled person understands as the patentee's claim after interpretation using the description and drawings. A claim interpretation which is supported by the description and drawings as a whole is generally not limited by a drawing showing only a specific shape of a component. 2. Pursuant to Art. 69(1) S. 1 EPC, the extent of the protection conferred by a European Patent shall be determined by the claims. It is therefore the claim that defines the outer limit of the scope of protection. Nevertheless, the description and the drawings shall be used to interpret the claims. Prior art is not mentioned there. The limitation to the description and the drawings as interpretation material serves the purpose of legal certainty, since the scope of protection can be conclusively determined from the patent itself. This does not mean that prior art is irrelevant to the definition of the scope of the patent and thus to claim construction. If this prior art is discussed in the description of the patent in suit, the relevant consid-erations must be taken into account. If the patent distinguishes itself from the prior art in a particular way, an interpretation that negates that distinction must be avoided. 3. The right of publication includes a further element of punishment. Publication should therefore only be granted if the protection of the Claimant is not provided effectively and sufficiently ensured by other measures ordered.

Gillette-Defense, order of publication of decisions, Interpretation of claim, preferred embodiments