T 0011/82 (Control Circuit) of 15.4.1983

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:1983:T001182.19830415
Date of decision: 15 April 1983
Case number: T 0011/82
Application number: 78300585.3
IPC class: -
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: A
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 817 KB)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: OJ | Published
Title of application: -
Applicant name: Lansing Bagnall
Opponent name: -
Board: 3.5.01
Headnote: I. A European patent application must satisfy the conditions laid down in the Implementing Regulations. If, in the opinion of the Examining Division, it does not do so, the Examining Division is obliged to refuse it.
II. The expression "background art" used in the English text of Rule 27(1)(c) and (d) EPC must have the same meaning as the more familiar expression "prior art".
III. If amended claims are submitted following the issue of the European Search Report and/or as a result of a communication from the Examining Division, it will be necessary to make consequential amendments to the description in order to ensure that the amended claims are supported by the description. The amended description will be a document replacing a document making up the European patent application and all the provisions of Rule 27 EPC will apply to it.
IV. Rule 27 EPC recognises the needs of the public to be able to understand the invention and any advantageous effects it may have, from the description, at any time.
V. The mere addition to the description of a reference to prior art cannot reasonably be interpreted as the addition of "subject- matter", contrary to Article 123(2) EPC. Nor is it inevitable that the addition of a discussion of the advantages of the invention with reference to such prior art would constitute a contravention of that Article. Whether it did so would clearly depend on the actual language used and the circumstances of the case.
VI. It should not be assumed that if points raised by an appellant in his Statement of Grounds of his appeal are not referred to in communications issued by the Boards of Appeal, this means that the Board accepts that the appellant's submissions on those points are correct.
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 54(2)
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 69(1)
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 78(1)
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 78(3)
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 84
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 97(1)
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 123(2)
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 138(1)(c)
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 138(2)
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 164(1)
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 164(2)
European Patent Convention 1973 R 27(1)(c)
European Patent Convention 1973 R 27(1)(d)
European Patent Convention 1973 R 36(1)
Protocol on interpretation Art 069
Keywords: Practice Boards of Appeal - Communications
Catchwords:

-

Cited decisions:
-
Citing decisions:
T 0049/89
T 0450/97
T 0545/01
T 0725/05
T 2321/08
T 2450/17

12 references found.

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

EPO Guidelines - F The European Patent Application

Offical Journal of the EPO

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

Case Law Book: IV Divisional Applications

General Case Law