T 0371/88 (Transmission apparatus) vom 29.05.1990
- Europäischer Rechtsprechungsidentifikator
- ECLI:EP:BA:1990:T037188.19900529
- Datum der Entscheidung
- 29. Mai 1990
- Aktenzeichen
- T 0371/88
- Antrag auf Überprüfung von
- -
- Anmeldenummer
- 80304241.5
- IPC-Klasse
- F16H 1/38B60K 5/04B60K 17/34
- 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
- Fuji
- Name des Einsprechenden
- Steyr-Daimler-Puch
- Kammer
- 3.2.01
- Leitsatz
The amendment of a granted claim to replace a restrictive term, which in its strict literal meaning does not clearly embrace a further embodiment of the description, by a less restrictive term clearly embracing also this embodiment, is permissible under Article 123(3) EPC, if the examination of the extent of protection conferred by the granted claim results in the following conclusions:
(a) The restrictive term in the granted claim is not so clear in its technical meaning in the given context that it could be used to determine the extent of protection without interpretation by reference to the description and the drawings of the patent;
(b) It is quite clear from the description and the drawings of the patent and also from the examination procedure up to grant that the further embodiment belongs to the invention and that it was never intended to exclude it from protection conferred by the
- Relevante Rechtsnormen
- European Patent Convention Art 123(3) 1973European Patent Convention Art 56 1973European Patent Convention Art 69 1973
- Schlagwörter
- Extension of the protection by broadening a restrictive term in a claim during opposition proceedings
Inventive step (yes) - Orientierungssatz
- -
- Zitierte Akten
- -
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The impugned decision is set aside.
2. The case is remitted to the first instance with the order to maintain the patent on the basis of Claim 1 according to the main request as presented at the oral proceedings, Claim 2 and description as amended during the opposition proceedings and further corrected on page 1a according to point 7 of the Decision, together with the drawings as granted.