| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2004:G000203.20040408 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 08 April 2004 | ||||||||
| Case number: | G 0002/03 | ||||||||
| Referral: | T 0451/99 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 86902998.3 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | C12Q 1/70 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | A | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Synthetic antigens for the detection of aids-related disease | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | GENETIC SYSTEMS CORPORATION | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | Roche Diagnostics GmbH Dade Behring Marburg GmbH |
||||||||
| Board: | EBA | ||||||||
| Headnote: | 1. An amendment to a claim by the introduction of a disclaimer may not be refused under Article 123(2) EPC for the sole reason that neither the disclaimer nor the subject-matter excluded by it from the scope of the claim have a basis in the application as filed. 2. The following criteria are to be applied for assessing the allowability of a disclaimer which is not disclosed in the application as filed: 2.1 A disclaimer may be allowable in order to: - restore novelty by delimiting a claim against state of the art under Article 54(3) and (4) EPC; - restore novelty by delimiting a claim against an accidental anticipation under Article 54(2) EPC; an anticipation is accidental if it is so unrelated to and remote from the claimed invention that the person skilled in the art would never have taken it into consideration when making the invention; and - disclaim subject-matter which, under Articles 52 to 57 EPC, is excluded from patentability for non-technical reasons. 2.2 A disclaimer should not remove more than is necessary either to restore novelty or to disclaim subject-matter excluded from patentability for non-technical reasons. 2.3 A disclaimer which is or becomes relevant for the assessment of inventive step or sufficiency of disclosure adds subject-matter contrary to Article 123(2) EPC. 2.4 A claim containing a disclaimer must meet the requirements of clarity and conciseness of Article 84 EPC. |
||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: | |||||||||
| Keywords: | Allowability of disclaimers - delimitation against state of the art under Article 54(2) and (3)(4) - accidental anticipation - exclusion of subject-matter not eligible for patent protection Drafting of disclaimers - requirements of clarity and conciseness |
||||||||
| Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: | |||||||||
Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/g030002ex1.html
Date retrieved: 17 May 2021
90 references found.
Click X to load a reference inside the current page, click on the title to open in a new page.EPC Articles
EPC Implementing Rules
EPO Guidelines - F The European Patent Application
EPO Guidelines - G Patentability
XGL G II 5.4 Plant and animal varieties or essentially biological processes for the production of plants or animals
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 2017, A50 - Interlocutory decision of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.3.09 dated 17 October 2016 - T 437/14
Case Law Book: I Patentability
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