| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2008:T060606.20080423 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 23 April 2008 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0606/06 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 99938911.7 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | F23J 17/00 F23G 5/32 |
||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | B | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Heating and incineration device | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | Ludwig, Mark | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | - | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.2.03 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: | |||||||||
| Keywords: | Abstract part of contest of application as filed (no) Reimbursement of appeal fee (no) |
||||||||
| Catchwords: |
The abstract as originally filed does not form part of the content of the application as filed for the purposes of Article 123(2) EPC 2000 (T 0246/86). The word "merely" in Article 85 EPC 1973 is to be understood as meaning "only" and the word "shall" in Rule 33(2) EPC 1973 is to be understood in the sense of "should" or "ought to". In the case of any discrepancy between the abstract as originally filed and the description, claims and drawings as originally filed, it is the latter which prevails. |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t060606eu1.html
Date retrieved: 17 May 2021