| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:1987:T016282.19870620 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 20 June 1987 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0162/82 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 80300896.0 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | G06G 3/153 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | A | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | - | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | Sigma | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | - | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.5.01 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | The Guidelines for Examination are stated to be only general instructions intended to cover normal occurrences. Accordingly, an Examining Division has discretion to depart from them provided that it acts in accordance with the EPC. In reviewing the decision of the Examining Division, a Board of Appeal will judge whether the Division has acted in conformity with the EPC and not whether it has acted in accordance with the Guidelines. 2. There is no reason to refer to the Enlarged Board of Appeal a question of law concerning the extent to which the Examining Division and Board of Appeal should have regard to the Guidelines in interpreting the provisions of the EPC, in order to ensure uniform application of the law. This general question already appears to be clearly answered by the General Introduction to the Guidelines, paragraph 1.2 as far as the Examining Division is concerned and by Article 23(3) EPC as far as the Board of Appeal is concerned. Any further questions in this respect can only relate to specific cases which cannot be examined isolated from the facts. They can, therefore, not be submitted to the Enlarged Board of Appeal (Article 112(2) EPC). 3. The expression "as often as necessary" in Article 96(2) EPC indicates that the Examining Division has a discretion which has to be exercised objectively in the light of the circumstances of each case. This relieves the Examining Division of any obligation which on a reasonable objective basis could be considered superfluous. The interests of orderly and economic examining procedures may preclude the sending of more than one communication where this would not appear to be likely to lead to a positive result (following T 161/82, OJ EPO 1984, 551). 4. Rule 29(1) EPC requires the two-part form of a claim wherever appropriate. It has already been decided (T 13/84, OJ 8/1986, 253-260) that a claim in two-part form is appropriate if there exists a clearly defined state of the art from which the claimed subject- matter distinguishes itself by further technical features. The extent to which prior art is cited in the description is a matter governed by Rule 27 EPC and this cannot be a determinative factor in deciding the question whether the one-part or the two-part form of a claim is appropriate in a given case. |
||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: | |||||||||
| Keywords: | Inventive step (yes) One part claim (not allowed) Reimbursement of appeal fee (no) Appeal fee reimbursement (no) Reference to the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the question how far Examining Divisions and Boards of Appeal are bound by the Guidlines (refused) |
||||||||
| Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: | |||||||||
Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t820162ex1.html
Date retrieved: 17 May 2021
29 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
XOJ EPO SE 1/2021, p179 - Annex 1 - Index of published decisions of the boards of appeal and the Enlarged Board of Appeal - (as at 31 December 2020)
XOJ EPO SE 1/2020, p174 - Annex 1 - Index of published decisions of the boards of appeal and the Enlarged Board of Appeal - (as at 31 December 2019)
XOJ EPO SE 1/2019, p158 - XVI. - Index of published decisions of the boards of appeal and the Enlarged Board of Appeal - (as at 31 December 2018)