| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2008:T180806.20080214 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 14 February 2008 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 1808/06 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 92903433.8 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | B32B 1/04 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | B | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Oxygen-absorbing label | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | Multisorb Technologies, Inc. | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | Mitsubishi Gas Chemical Company, Inc. | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.3.09 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | When the description has to be amended with regard to the requirement of Article 84 EPC that the claims have to be supported by the description, reference to Article 69(1) EPC as justification for a less stringent adaptation of the description is misleading insofar as it can be understood to suggest a direct applicability of its contents at the examination or opposition stage. This is clearly not the case as Article 69(1) EPC relates to the scope of protection. It is only in situations where the removal of inconsistencies is not possible for procedural reasons (eg no amendment possible of the granted version) that - purely as an auxiliary construction - Article 69(1) EPC can be invoked for an interpretation of the claimed subject-matter. |
||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Adaptation of description: Reliance on Article 69(1) (no) - Reliance on Article 84 (yes) Different interpretations of relative terms by inappropriate amendment of passages in the description - not admissible under Article 123(2) |
||||||||
| Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t061808eu1.html
Date retrieved: 17 May 2021