T 2001/12 () of 29.1.2015

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2015:T200112.20150129
Date of decision: 29 January 2015
Case number: T 2001/12
Application number: 08764638.6
IPC class: H01L 29/06
H01L 29/788
H01L 29/792
H01L 21/28
H01L 21/336
H01L 29/423
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: B
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 377 KB)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: MEMORY DEVICE AND ITS READING METHOD
Applicant name: National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science
and Technology
Opponent name: -
Board: 3.4.03
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 54
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 56
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 83
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 84
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 111(1)
European Patent Convention Art 123(2)
Keywords: Sufficiency of disclosure - (yes)
Claims - essential features
Claims - relationship between Article 83 and Article 84
Claims - clarity - main request (yes)
Catchwords:

An objection of insufficient disclosure under Article 83 EPC 1973 cannot legitimately be based on an argument that the application would not enable a skilled person to achieve a non-claimed technical effect (point 3.4).

A doubt that the invention as claimed is capable of solving the problem defined in the application may have the following consequences:

a) If the question arises because the claim fails to specify those features which are disclosed in the application as providing the solution to the problem, then the description and claims are inconsistent in relation to the definition of the invention, and an objection under Article 84 EPC 1973 may properly arise that the claims do not contain all the essential features necessary to specify the invention.

b) If this is not the case, but, having regard to the prior art, and irrespective of what may be asserted in the description, it does not appear credible that the invention as claimed would actually be capable of solving the problem, then an objection under Article 56 EPC 1973 may be raised (point 4.4).

Cited decisions:
G 0001/03
T 0032/82
T 0133/85
T 0939/92
T 0260/98
T 0400/98
T 0813/03
T 1079/08
Citing decisions:
T 0862/11
T 0863/12
T 1216/12
T 0206/13
T 0692/13
T 2135/13
T 2338/13
T 0603/14
T 1180/14
T 1291/14
T 1744/14
T 2180/14
T 0012/15
T 0062/15
T 0473/15
T 2135/15
T 2284/15
T 0258/16
T 1137/16
T 1502/16
T 2210/16
T 2530/16

24 references found.

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

EPC Articles

Offical Journal of the EPO

Case Law Book: I Patentability

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

Case Law of the Enlarged Board

General Case Law