T 1404/05 () of 24.5.2007

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2007:T140405.20070524
Date of decision: 24 May 2007
Case number: T 1404/05
Application number: 96926288.0
IPC class: B01D 63/02
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: C
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 63.873K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Vertical skein of hollow fiber membranes and method of maintaining clean fiber surfaces
Applicant name: Zenon Technology Partnership
Opponent name: MEMCOR AUSTRALIA PTY LTD.
Board: 3.3.07
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 100(b)
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 100(c)
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 111(1)
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 123(2)
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 123(3)
European Patent Convention 1973 R 57a
Keywords: Main Request - extension of the subject-matter of the patent as granted beyond the content of the application as filed - (no)
Main Request - insufficiency of disclosure - (yes)
Auxiliary Request - Admissible (yes)
Auxiliary Request - extension of the subject-matter of the patent as granted beyond the content of the application as filed - (no)
Auxiliary Request - Amendments - extension of the subject-matter of the application as filed (no) - extension of the protection conferred by the patent as granted (no) - allowable (yes)
Auxiliary Request - Remittal (yes)
Catchwords:

Where a claim is vaguely formulated and leaves several constructions open as possibilities, and on one of these constructions part of the subject-matter claimed is not sufficiently described to be carried out, the claim is open to objection under Article 100(b) EPC. To avoid this objection the claim needs to be explicitly restricted to a construction which is also possible on the vague formulation of the claim, but which construction is not open to an Article 100(b) EPC objection. The mere fact that the description makes clear that this latter construction is the one intended does not mean that the claim can be treated as being confined to this latter construction. Article 69 EPC and its protocol were intended to assist a patent proprietor in contending for a broader interpretation of a claim than perhaps its wording warranted, not for cutting down the scope of a claim (see points 3.1 to 3.7).

Cited decisions:
T 0416/86
T 0265/88
Citing decisions:
T 0553/11
T 0450/13
T 0460/13
T 1888/13

10 references found.

Click X to load a reference inside the current page, click on the title to open in a new page.

Offical Journal of the EPO

Case Law Book: II Conditions to be met by an Application

General Case Law