| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2010:T099007.20100223 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 23 February 2010 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0990/07 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 04255379.2 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | H01Q 1/24 H01Q 7/00 H01Q 1/36 H01Q 1/38 |
||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | B | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Portable terminal apparatus | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | FUJITSU LIMITED | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | - | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.4.01 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | The purpose of the "examples" evoked in Rule 27(1)(e) EPC 1973 appears primarily to be to complete an otherwise incomplete teaching. As a consequence, the application cannot be refused under this provision if the description is considered to describe, despite the presence of erroneous drawings and the resulting lack of examples actually embodying the invention, "one way of carrying out the invention" (cf. point 3). | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: | |||||||||
| Keywords: | Sufficiency of disclosure despite the absence of examples embodying the invention (yes) Intermediate generalisation (allowable) Clarity (yes) Novelty -inventive step (yes) |
||||||||
| Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t070990eu1.html
Date retrieved: 17 May 2021