European Patent Office

T 2130/11 vom 02.12.2014

Europäischer Rechtsprechungsidentifikator
ECLI:EP:BA:2014:T213011.20141202
Datum der Entscheidung
2. Dezember 2014
Aktenzeichen
T 2130/11
Antrag auf Überprüfung von
-
Anmeldenummer
04254247.2
Verfahrenssprache
Englisch
Verteilung
An die Kammervorsitzenden und -mitglieder verteilt (B)
Amtsblattfassungen
Keine AB-Links gefunden
Weitere Entscheidungen für diese Akte
-
Zusammenfassungen für diese Entscheidung
-
Bezeichnung der Anmeldung
Methods of providing two-part self-adhering dental compositions
Name des Antragstellers
Kerr Corporation
Name des Einsprechenden
3M Innovative Properties Company
3M Deutschland GmbH
Kammer
3.3.07
Leitsatz
-
Schlagwörter
Admissibility of appeal - appeal sufficiently substantiated (yes)
Claims - clarity of disclaimer (no)
Amendments - disclosed disclaimer
Amendments - extension beyond the content of the application as filed (yes)
Late-filed auxiliary requests - admitted (yes)
Amendments - extension beyond the content of the application as filed (no)
Appeal decision - remittal to the department of first instance (yes)
Orientierungssatz
The difficulty for the applicant or patent proprietor in formulating an allowable disclaimer cannot justify an exception in the application of Article 84 EPC which is not foreseen in the Convention. Not even a condition on the allowability of a disclaimer made explicit in a decision of the Enlarged Board as the condition that a "disclaimer should not remove more than is necessary to restore novelty" (G 1/03, point 3 in the reasons, second paragraph, last sentence) may have as a consequence the watering down of one of the requirements of the EPC. The requirements of Article 84 EPC must therefore apply for a disclaimer as for any other feature of a patent claim (see point 2.9).
On the other side, the condition that the disclaimer should not remove more than is necessary to restore novelty should be applied while taking into consideration its purpose, namely that the "necessity for a disclaimer is not an opportunity for the applicant to reshape his claims arbitrarily" (G 1/03, point 3 in the reasons, second paragraph, last but one sentence). In this respect situations can be foreseen, in which, while fulfilment of the condition taken in a strictly literal way would not be possible, a definition of the disclaimed subject-matter which satisfies the requirements of Article 84 EPC and fulfils the purpose of the condition (i.e. to avoid an arbitrary reshaping of the claims) may be achievable. In other words, a disclaimer removing more than strictly necessary to restore novelty would not be in contradiction with the spirit of G 1/03, if it were required to satisfy Article 84 EPC and it did not lead to an arbitrary reshaping of the claims (see point 2.10).

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The decision under appeal is set aside.

2. The case is remitted to the department of first instance for further prosecution.