| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2008:T061905.20080228 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 28 February 2008 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0619/05 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 98938001.9 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | G06F 17/60 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | C | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Data processing system and method for facilitating transactions in diamonds | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | Diamonds.Net LLC | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | - | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.5.01 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Addition of non-technical subject-matter (not decided) Inventive step (no) |
||||||||
| Catchwords: |
1. The term "subject-matter", without a qualifier, seems to indicate that Article 123(2) EPC applies to non-technical as well as technical subject-matter. Thus, also any amendments concerning non-technical subject-matter should be derivable from the patent application as filed. 2. Since the members of a board of appeal are only required to be technically (or legally) qualified under Article 21 EPC, it will be up to the applicant (or patent proprietor) to provide evidence permitting a board to determine to its satisfaction how a person skilled in the relevant non-technical field would interpret the original patent application and the application (or patent) after amendment (see points 2.2 to 2.4 of the Reasons). |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t050619eu1.html
Date retrieved: 17 May 2021