T 1808/06 () of 14.2.2008

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2008:T180806.20080214
Date of decision: 14 February 2008
Case number: T 1808/06
Application number: 92903433.8
IPC class: B32B 1/04
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: B
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 35 KB)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Oxygen-absorbing label
Applicant name: Multisorb Technologies, Inc.
Opponent name: Mitsubishi Gas Chemical Company, Inc.
Board: 3.3.09
Headnote: When the description has to be amended with regard to the requirement of Article 84 EPC that the claims have to be supported by the description, reference to Article 69(1) EPC as justification for a less stringent adaptation of the description is misleading insofar as it can be understood to suggest a direct applicability of its contents at the examination or opposition stage. This is clearly not the case as Article 69(1) EPC relates to the scope of protection.
It is only in situations where the removal of inconsistencies is not possible for procedural reasons (eg no amendment possible of the granted version) that - purely as an auxiliary construction - Article 69(1) EPC can be invoked for an interpretation of the claimed subject-matter.
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention Art 69(1)
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 84
European Patent Convention Art 123(2)
Keywords: Adaptation of description: Reliance on Article 69(1) (no) - Reliance on Article 84 (yes)
Different interpretations of relative terms by inappropriate amendment of passages in the description - not admissible under Article 123(2)
Catchwords:

-

Cited decisions:
-
Citing decisions:
T 1252/11
T 1883/11
T 1646/12
T 0237/16

6 references found.

Click X to load a reference inside the current page, click on the title to open in a new page.

EPC Articles

EPO Guidelines - F The European Patent Application

Case Law Book: II Conditions to be met by an Application

General Case Law