European Patent Office

T 1409/05 (Sequence of divisionals/SEIKO) vom 30.03.2006

Europäischer Rechtsprechungsidentifikator
ECLI:EP:BA:2006:T140905.20060330
Datum der Entscheidung
30. März 2006
Aktenzeichen
T 1409/05
Antrag auf Überprüfung von
-
Anmeldenummer
01128824.8
IPC-Klasse
G09G 3/36
Verfahrenssprache
Englisch
Verteilung
Nicht verteilt (D)
Amtsblattfassungen
Weitere Entscheidungen für diese Akte
T 1409/05 2007-07-18
Zusammenfassungen für diese Entscheidung
-
Bezeichnung der Anmeldung
Liquid crystal device
Name des Antragstellers
SEIKO EPSON CORPORATION
Name des Einsprechenden
-
Kammer
3.4.03
Leitsatz

The following questions are referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal:

(1) In the case of a sequence of applications consisting of a root (originating) application followed by divisional applications, each divided from its predecessor, is it a necessary and sufficient condition for a divisional application of that sequence to comply with Article 76(1) EPC, second sentence, that anything disclosed in that divisional application be directly, unambiguously and separately derivable from what is disclosed in each of the preceding applications as filed?

(2) If the above condition is not sufficient,

does said sentence impose the additional requirement

(a) that the subject-matter of the claims of said divisional be nested within the subject-matter of the claims of its divisional predecessors?

or

(b) that all the divisional predecessors of said divisional comply with Article 76(1) EPC?

Schlagwörter
Compliance with Article 76(1) EPC for a sequence of divisional application
According of a filing date
Content of the application
Referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal
Orientierungssatz
-

ORDER

For these reasons it is decided that:

The following questions are referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal:

(1) In the case of a sequence of applications consisting of a root (originating) application followed by divisional applications, each divided from its predecessor, is it a necessary and sufficient condition for a divisional application of that sequence to comply with Article 76(1) EPC, second sentence, that anything disclosed in that divisional application be directly, unambiguously and separately derivable from what is disclosed in each of the preceding applications as filed?

(2) If the above condition is not sufficient,

does said sentence impose the additional requirement

(a) that the subject-matter of the claims of said divisional be nested within the subject-matter of the claims of its divisional predecessors?

or

(b) that all the divisional predecessors of said divisional comply with Article 76(1) EPC?