Decision

1. Article 57 ‘EPC’, according to which “an invention shall be considered as susceptible of industrial application if it can be made or used in any kind of industry, including agriculture” must be interpreted as meaning that an invention or an application for a patent for an alleged invention which would not comply with the generally accepted laws of physics falls within its scope because it cannot be used and therefore lacks industrial application. 2. Drawings must always be used as explanatory aids for the interpretation of the patent claim but cannot be used to extract a characteristic when definitively and unambiguously contradicted by the description. 3. In the event that the patent proprietor applies to amend the patent and proposes more alternative auxiliary requests, these auxiliary requests must be addressed in the order indicated by the applicant, in the absence of specific elements and/or requests suggesting otherwise

lack of industrial application; claim interpretation; auxiliary requests