T 0129/88 (Fibre) vom 10.02.1992
- Europäischer Rechtsprechungsidentifikator
- ECLI:EP:BA:1992:T012988.19920210
- Datum der Entscheidung
- 10. Februar 1992
- Aktenzeichen
- T 0129/88
- Antrag auf Überprüfung von
- -
- Anmeldenummer
- 80200517.3
- IPC-Klasse
- D01F 6/60
- Verfahrenssprache
- Englisch
- Verteilung
- Im Amtsblatt des EPA veröffentlicht (A)
- Download
- Entscheidung auf Englisch
- Amtsblattfassungen
- Weitere Entscheidungen für diese Akte
- -
- Zusammenfassungen für diese Entscheidung
- -
- Bezeichnung der Anmeldung
- -
- Name des Antragstellers
- AKZO
- Name des Einsprechenden
- Du Pont de Nemours
- Kammer
- 3.3.03
- Leitsatz
1. Although the European Patent Office has an obligation under Article 114(1) EPC to investigate matters of its own motion, that obligation does not extend as far as investigating an allegation of prior public use, where the party who formerly made that allegation has withdrawn from the proceedings, and it is difficult to establish all the relevant facts without his cooperation.
2. The inclusion in claims of features expressed in terms of having desirable properties in excess of a given lower limit is not inherently objectionable. In particular the scope of a claim may be adequately defined if the number of parameters so expressed has the effect of imposing practical upper limits having regard to the totality of features expressed in the claim (T 487/89 of 17 July 1991 - not published in OJ EPO - followed).
3. The incluslion in a product claim of one or more process features may be permissible if their presence is desirable having regard to the impact of the national laws of one or more Contacting States. (T 150/82, OJ EPO 1984, 309 explained and applied).
- Relevante Rechtsnormen
- European Patent Convention Art 114(1) 1973European Patent Convention Art 84 1973
- Schlagwörter
- Limited obligation of the EPO to investigate of its own motion
Clarity of claims - Orientierungssatz
- -
- Zitierte Akten
- -
ORDER
For these reasons, it is decided that:
1. The decision under appeal is set aside.
2. The case is remitted to the Opposition Division with the order to maintain the patent with claims as submitted by the Appellant in its letter of 7 October 1991, together with the description as granted, subject to the amendments proposed in the same letter.