| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:1989:T007388.19891107 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 07 November 1989 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0073/88 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 81301707.6 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | A23L 1/10 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | A | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | - | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | Howard | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | Flessner Convent |
||||||||
| Board: | 3.3.01 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | 1. A technical feature in a claim of a European patent, which is an essential feature for the purpose of determining the scope of protection conferred, is not necessarily an essential feature or element for the purpose of determining priority. Whether a particular feature is essential for the purpose of priority, and therefore needs to be specifically disclosed in the priority document, depends upon its relationship to the character and nature of the invention. In a case where a feature in a claim is not related to the function and effect of the invention, such feature is not related to the character and nature of the invention, and the absence of such feature from the disclosure of the priority document does not cause loss of priority, provided the claim is otherwise in substance in respect of the same invention as that disclosed in the priority document (Decisions T 81/87 and T 301/87 followed and distinguished). 2. If a technical feature in a claim of a European patent is a more specific embodiment of a feature which is more generally disclosed in the priority document, there is no loss of priority provided that the inclusion of such more specific technical features does not change the character and nature of the claimed invention which therefore remains in substance the same invention as that disclosed in the priority document. 3. If a patentee in opposition proceedings has had his request that the patent be maintained upheld by the Decision of the Opposition Division, he may not file an appeal against reasoning in the Decision which was adverse to him (here: his claim to priority), because he is not adversely affected by the Decision within the meaning of Article 107 EPC (following Decision J 12/85, OJ EPO 1986, 155). In the event of an appeal being filed by an opponent, however, if the patentee wishes to contend that such adverse reasoning was wrong, he should set out his grounds for so contending in his observations under Rule 57(1) EPC in reply to the statement of grounds of appeal, by way of cross- appeal. |
||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Appeal - opponent party to appeal proceedings without having to file appeal - equal rights of all parties Adversely effected - patentee in opposition proceedings Priority - disclaimer - additional feature in claim not related to character and nature of invention |
||||||||
| Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: | |||||||||
Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t880073ex1.html
Date retrieved: 17 May 2021
36 references found.
Click X to load a reference inside the current page, click on the title to open in a new page.Offical Journal of the EPO
XOJ EPO SE 1/2021, p179 - Annex 1 - Index of published decisions of the boards of appeal and the Enlarged Board of Appeal - (as at 31 December 2020)
XOJ EPO SE 1/2020, p174 - Annex 1 - Index of published decisions of the boards of appeal and the Enlarged Board of Appeal - (as at 31 December 2019)
XOJ EPO SE 1/2019, p158 - XVI. - Index of published decisions of the boards of appeal and the Enlarged Board of Appeal - (as at 31 December 2018)
XOJ EPO 2016, A87 - Interlocutory decision of Technical Board of Appeal 3.3.06 dated 17 July 2015 - T 557/13
Case Law Book: II Conditions to be met by an Application
XCLR II D 3.1.2 G 2/98 and the concept of disclosure – interpretation in the same way as for Art. 123(2) EPC