European Patent Office

J 0020/94 (According of a filing date) of 24.07.1995

European Case Law Identifier
ECLI:EP:BA:1995:J002094.19950724
Date of decision
24 July 1995
Case number
J 0020/94
Petition for review of
-
Application number
-
IPC class
-
Language of proceedings
German
Distribution
Published in the EPO's Official Journal (A)
Download
-
Other decisions for this case
-
Abstracts for this decision
-
Application title
-
Applicant name
-
Opponent name
-
Board
3.1.01
Headnote

The following points of law are referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal:

1. For a filing date to be established in respect of a European patent application is it necessary for the filed application to contain, in addition to a description, at least one claim which is formulated separately from the description and is recognisable as such?

2. If the answer to question 1 is no: For a filing date to be established within the meaning of Article 80 EPC, is it sufficient if there is at least one claim which, although not expressly formulated as such, is derivable from the invention as described?

3. If the answer to question 2 is yes: To what extent must a claim which is not expressly formulated as such be derivable:

(a) Is it necessary for at least one claim to be directly and clearly recognisable from the text of the description, or

(b) Is it sufficient for the description to disclose an invention in such a way that it is possible to recognise subject-matter to be protected for which a claim could be formulated?

Keywords
Requirements regarding the existence of a claim for according a filing date
Catchword
-
Cited cases
-
Citing cases
J 0034/03

ORDER

For these reasons it is decided that:

The following points of law are referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal:

1. For a filing date to be established in respect of a European patent application is it necessary for the filed application to contain, in addition to a description, at least one claim which is formulated separately from the description and is recognisable as such?

2. If the answer to question 1 is no:

For a filing date to be established within the meaning of Article 80 EPC, is it sufficient if there is at least one claim which, although not expressly formulated as such, is derivable from the invention as described?

3. If the answer to question 2 is yes:

To what extent must a claim which is not expressly formulated as such be derivable:

(a) Is it necessary for at least one claim to be directly and clearly recognisable from the text of the description, or

(b) Is it sufficient for the description to disclose an invention in such a way that it is possible to recognise subject-matter to be protected for which a claim could be formulated ?