| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2003:T101802.20031209 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 09 December 2003 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 1018/02 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 96202352.9 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | H04Q 7/22 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | B | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Telecommunications system | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | BRITISH TECHNOLOGY GROUP INTER-CORPORATE LICENSING LIMITED | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | Schlumberger Systèmes SA SWISSCOM AG GEMPLUS BULL CP8 Landis & Gyr Communications Sà rl GIESECKE & DEVRIENT GmbH |
||||||||
| Board: | 3.5.01 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: | |||||||||
| Keywords: | Amendments - added subject-matter (yes) Substantive procedural violation (no) |
||||||||
| Catchwords: |
Although a claim must not be interpreted in a way which is illogical or does not make any sense, the description cannot be used to give a different meaning to a claim feature which in itself imparts a clear credible technical teaching to the skilled reader. This also applies if the feature has not been initially disclosed in the form appearing in the claim (see point 3.8 of the Reasons). |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: | |||||||||
Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t021018eu1.html
Date retrieved: 17 May 2021