| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2012:T192407.20120622 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 22 June 2012 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 1924/07 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 99309745.0 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | G06F 17/40 G06F 17/60 |
||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | B | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | A method of and device for collecting and combining FA information | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | Bridgestone Corporation | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | - | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.5.01 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Additional search - necessary (yes Additional search - technical features not notorious) Additional search - necessary for technical features acknowledged to be known in application (yes Additional search - search is basis for substantive examination) Substantial procedural violation - no additional search, but substantive examination (yes Substantial procedural violation - search manifestly necessary) Added subject-matter - "two-step" process for setting data collecting conditions (no Added subject-matter - inaccurate paraphrasing of claim) |
||||||||
| Catchwords: |
An applicant's acknowledgement in the original application that certain prior art is known is in general not a sufficient reason for not carrying out an additional search (see point 9 of the reasons). The only condition under which an additional search can be dispensed with is where all the technical features of a claim correspond to notorious prior art (see point 10 of the reasons). |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t071924eu1.html
Date retrieved: 17 May 2021