T 0500/01 (Humanized Immunoglobulins/PROTEIN DESIGN LABS, INC.) vom 12.11.2003
- Europäischer Rechtsprechungsidentifikator
- ECLI:EP:BA:2003:T050001.20031112
- Datum der Entscheidung
- 12. November 2003
- Aktenzeichen
- T 0500/01
- Antrag auf Überprüfung von
- -
- Anmeldenummer
- 90903576.8
- IPC-Klasse
- C12P 21/08
- Verfahrenssprache
- Englisch
- Verteilung
- An die Kammervorsitzenden und -mitglieder verteilt (B)
- Download
- Entscheidung auf Englisch
- Amtsblattfassungen
- Keine AB-Links gefunden
- Weitere Entscheidungen für diese Akte
- -
- Zusammenfassungen für diese Entscheidung
- -
- Bezeichnung der Anmeldung
- Humanized Immunoglobulins and their production and use
- Name des Antragstellers
- PROTEIN DESIGN LABS, INC.
- Name des Einsprechenden
- 02. ICOS Corp.
03. Novartis AG
04. Celltech Therapeutics Ltd
05. Bayer AG
06. Chiron Corporation
08. Genentech, Inc.
09. IDEC Pharmaceuticals Corpn
10. Biotest Pharma GmbH
11. Biotransplant, Inc
12. Bristol-Myers Company
13. GLAXO GROUP LIMITED
14. Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH
17. Schering Corporation
18. Ixsys, Inc - Kammer
- 3.3.04
- Leitsatz
- -
- Relevante Rechtsnormen
- European Patent Convention Art 111 1973European Patent Convention Art 123(2) 1973European Patent Convention Art 123(3) 1973European Patent Convention Art 84 1973
- Schlagwörter
- Main request and auxiliary request I - added matter (yes)
Auxiliary request II - added matter (no), clarity (yes)
Remittal - (yes) - Orientierungssatz
- According to Article 123(2) EPC, a European patent application or a European patent may not be amended in such a way that it contains subject-matter which extends beyond the content of the application as filed. A claim, the wording of which is essentially identical to a claim as originally filed, can nevertheless contravene the requirements of Article 123(2) EPC, if it contains a feature whose definition has been amended in the description in a non-allowable way. The specific definition of a feature, which according to the description is an overriding requirement of the claimed invention, is applied by a skilled reader to interpret this feature whenever it is mentioned in the patent (see points (11) to (15) of the Reasons for the Decision).
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The appeal of Opponents 18 is rejected as inadmissible.
2. The decision under appeal is set aside.
3. The matter is remitted to the first instance for further prosecution on the basis of claims 1 to 15 of auxiliary request II filed on 22 June 2001.