|European Case Law Identifier:||ECLI:EP:BA:1994:G000793.19940513|
|Date of decision:||13 May 1994|
|Case number:||G 0007/93|
|IPC class:||A61K 47/00|
|Language of proceedings:||EN|
|Download and more information:||
|Title of application:||Penetration enhancers for transdermal delivery of systemic agents|
|Applicant name:||Whitby Research, Inc.|
|Headnote:||I. An approval of a notified text submitted by an applicant pursuant to Rule 51(4) EPC does not become binding once a communication in accordance with Rule 51(6) EPC has been issued. Following issue of such a communication under Rule 51(6) EPC and until issue of a decision to grant the patent, the Examining Division has a discretion under Rule 86(3) EPC, second sentence, whether or not to allow amendment of the application.
II. When exercising such discretion following issue of a communication under Rule 51(6) EPC, an Examining Division must consider all relevant factors. In particular it must consider and balance the applicant's interest in obtaining a patent which is legally valid in all of the designated States, and the EPO's interest in bringing the examination procedure to a close by the issue of a decision to grant the patent. Having regard to the object underlying the issue of a communication under Rule 51(6) EPC, which is to conclude the granting procedure on the basis of the previously approved text, the allowance of a request for amendment at that late stage in the granting procedure will be an exception rather than the rule.
III. Reservations under Article 167(2) EPC do not constitute requirements of the EPC which have to be met according to Article 96(2) EPC.
|Relevant legal provisions:|
|Keywords:||Amendments after a Rule 51(6) communication - discretion of Examining Division
Reservations under Article 167(2) EPC
Date retrieved: 30 December 2018