| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:1983:T001182.19830415 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 15 April 1983 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0011/82 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 78300585.3 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | - | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | A | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | - | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | Lansing Bagnall | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | - | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.5.01 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | I. A European patent application must satisfy the conditions laid down in the Implementing Regulations. If, in the opinion of the Examining Division, it does not do so, the Examining Division is obliged to refuse it. II. The expression "background art" used in the English text of Rule 27(1)(c) and (d) EPC must have the same meaning as the more familiar expression "prior art". III. If amended claims are submitted following the issue of the European Search Report and/or as a result of a communication from the Examining Division, it will be necessary to make consequential amendments to the description in order to ensure that the amended claims are supported by the description. The amended description will be a document replacing a document making up the European patent application and all the provisions of Rule 27 EPC will apply to it. IV. Rule 27 EPC recognises the needs of the public to be able to understand the invention and any advantageous effects it may have, from the description, at any time. V. The mere addition to the description of a reference to prior art cannot reasonably be interpreted as the addition of "subject- matter", contrary to Article 123(2) EPC. Nor is it inevitable that the addition of a discussion of the advantages of the invention with reference to such prior art would constitute a contravention of that Article. Whether it did so would clearly depend on the actual language used and the circumstances of the case. VI. It should not be assumed that if points raised by an appellant in his Statement of Grounds of his appeal are not referred to in communications issued by the Boards of Appeal, this means that the Board accepts that the appellant's submissions on those points are correct. |
||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: | |||||||||
| Keywords: | Practice Boards of Appeal - Communications | ||||||||
| Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t820011ex1.html
Date retrieved: 17 May 2021
12 references found.
Click X to load a reference inside the current page, click on the title to open in a new page.EPO Guidelines - F The European Patent Application
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)
Case Law Book: II Conditions to be met by an Application
Case Law Book: IV Divisional Applications
XCLR IV B 3.9 Refusal of a European patent application under Article 97(2) EPC (former Article 97(1) EPC 1973)