| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:1986:J000485.19860228 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 28 February 1986 | ||||||||
| Case number: | J 0004/85 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 83402385.5 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | G10H | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | FR | ||||||||
| Distribution: | |||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | - | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | Etat Français | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | - | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.1.01 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | 1. A request for correction under Rule 88 EPC with a view to substituting a new set of drawings for incorrect drawings calls into question the initial content of the European patent application owing to the retroactive nature of the correction. Accordingly, the applicant cannot be validly informed in accordance with Rule 43 EPC until a decision on the request for correction has been given. 2. In applying Rule 88 EPC, it is necessary to take account of all the facts and evidence enabling the applicant's intention to be established immediately when the request for correction is examined, and not to limit the examination to the patent application proper and to the documents filed with it. The priority document is an important element in establishing the applicant's intention and must be taken into consideration even if it was not filed with the European patent application. 3. The duties of the Receiving Section do not include a technical examination of the file; it should not, therefore, take a decision on a request for correction necessitating such an examination, but should leave the request in abeyance until the file has been transferred to the Examining Division. 4. In deciding that Rule 43 EPC did not constitute a lex specialis as compared with the dispositions of Rule 88, the Board has departed from the interpretation of the Convention given in a previous decision (J 01/82) since it considered that corrections made under Rule 88 being retroactive, the applicant could not be informed in accordance with Rule 43 unless the requested corrections were refused. |
||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Correction of drawings Use of priority documents Receiving Section not competent to carry out technical examination Interpretation of the EPC different to that in previous decision |
||||||||
| Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/j850004ep1.html
Date retrieved: 17 May 2021
19 references found.
Click X to load a reference inside the current page, click on the title to open in a new page.EPO Guidelines - H Amendments and Corrections
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)