| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:1993:T028892.19931118 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 18 November 1993 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0288/92 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 87302915.1 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | C07D 249/12 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | B | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Triazolopyrimidine herbicides | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | Schering Agrochemicals Limited | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | - | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.3.01 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Implicit disclosure (no) Novelty test (not appropriate for deciding the allowability of amendments) Procedural violations (no) |
||||||||
| Catchwords: |
I. The allowability of amendments under Article 123(2) EPC is to be decided solely on the basis of examining whether the amendments are directly and unambiguously derivable (extractable) from the application as filed. Any questions raised by a "novelty test" are hypothetical and therefore irrelevant (point 3.2 of the reasons). II. It is not permissible to amend a generic formula defining a class of chemical compounds by restricting an originally disclosed generic definition of a substituent to a specific (individual) one which is arbitrarily selected from chemical entities, such as worked examples,without some support for such restriction in the general part of the description. (point 3.4 of the reasons). |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: | |||||||||
Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t920288eu1.html
Date retrieved: 17 May 2021