In T 1088/06
an appeal was filed against the decision of the Examining Division refusing the European patent application, which had been filed as a divisional application on the ground that the application extended beyond the content of the earlier application as filed. The expression "10-4
" occurred six times in the earlier application. The expression "104
", which differed from the above expression by a reversal of the sign of the exponents, also occurred six times in the divisional application as filed. The question raised was whether the range of the electrostatic dissipation capacity and the range of the ability to dissipate electrostatic energy indicated as being "between about 104
" extended beyond the content of the earlier application as filed. The Examining Division had held that the correct range could not be "directly and unambiguously derived from the parent application as originally disclosed." In the board's view, if information in the earlier application is objectively recognisable by the person skilled in the art as information that is incorrect, and if the person skilled in the art would derive the correct information directly and unambiguously, using common general knowledge, and seen objectively and relative to the date of filing, from the whole of the documents of the earlier application as filed, then the correct information belongs to the content of the earlier application and may be used to decide whether a divisional application extends beyond the content of the earlier application as filed (Art. 76(1) EPC
). In the case before it, the board concluded that the range of 104
did not introduce subject-matter extending beyond the earlier application as filed.