T 0276/99 (Publication of patent specification/PHILIPS) of 26.9.2001

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2001:T027699.20010926
Date of decision: 26 September 2001
Case number: T 0276/99
Application number: 93203143.8
IPC class: H04N 3/32
H04N 3/26
H04N 5/59
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: B
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 42 KB)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Display device including a correction circuit, and correction circuit for use in said device
Applicant name: Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.
Opponent name: -
Board: 3.5.01
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 23(3)
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 65
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 69
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 83
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 84
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 93
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 97(1)
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 98
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 123(2)
European Patent Convention 1973 R 27(1)
European Patent Convention 1973 R 34(1)(c)
European Patent Convention 1973 R 51(4)
European Patent Convention 1973 R 51(5)
Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Art 41(1)(2), 62(4)
IntPatÜG Art .II(3) (German Law/Int. Patent Convention)
German Basic Law (GG) Art 024(1)
EC Treaty Art 028(ex 30), 234 (ex 177)
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) Art 30(3)
Keywords: Replacement of parts of the description by a reference to the A-publication (no)
Referral to Enlarged Board of Appeal (no)
Referral to Court of Justice of the European Communities (no)
Catchwords:

(1) The description is an essential part of the patent specification for the purpose of understanding and being able to carry out the invention (Article 83 EPC) and for determining the scope of the claims pursuant to Article 69 EPC, and parts of the description cannot be replaced by a mere reference to the A-publication (even if this might save on translation costs).

(2) The provisions of the EPC, and the purpose of these, forbidding such replacement are clear, and no serious arguments based on the EC Treaty or the TRIPS Agreement exist which throw doubt on the matter or which raise anything that can be regarded as an important point of law that should be referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal, let alone the Court of Justice of the European Communities. A reference to the latter would in any case appear to have no basis under the EPC or the EC Treaty Article 234 (ex 177).

Cited decisions:
T 0211/83
T 0150/89
T 1173/97
Citing decisions:
T 0348/11
T 1849/12

Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t990276eu1.html

Date retrieved: 17 May 2021

7 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

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

Case Law Book: VII Proceedings before the EPO

General Case Law