G 0003/93 (Priority interval) of 16.08.1994

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:1994:G000393.19940816

Date of decision

16 August 1994

Case number

G 0003/93

Petition for review of

Application number

IPC class

Language of proceedings

English

Distribution

Published in the EPO's Official Journal (A)

Download

Decision in English

OJ versions

Other decisions for this case

Abstracts for this decision

Application title

Applicant name

Opponent name

Board

Headnote

1. A document published during the priority interval, the technical contents of which correspond to that of the priority document, constitutes prior art citable under Article 54(2) EPC against a European patent application claiming that priority, to the extent such priority is not validly claimed.

2. This also applies if a claim to priority is invalid due to the fact that the priority document and the subsequent European application do not concern the same invention because the European application claims subject-matter not disclosed in the priority document.

Relevant legal provisions

European Patent Convention Art 54(2) 1973 European Patent Convention Art 87 1973 European Patent Convention Art 88 1973 European Patent Convention Art 89 1973

Keywords

Priority - document published during the priority interval
State of the art - document published during the priority interval
Invalid priority - different invention
Obiter dictum - admissibility of the referral

Catchword

Cited cases

Citing cases

G 0002/98 G 0001/02 G 0002/02 G 0003/02 G 0003/08 G 0001/15 G 0003/19 G 0001/22 G 0002/22 T 0594/90 T 0961/90 T 0105/91 T 0189/91 T 0127/92 T 0293/92 T 0893/92 T 1054/92 T 0441/93 T 1052/93 T 1056/93 T 0178/94 T 0552/94 T 0816/94 T 0051/95 T 0136/95 T 0377/95 T 0560/95 T 0131/99 T 0507/99 T 0998/99 T 1084/99 T 0015/01 T 0910/06 T 1459/06 T 0680/08 T 2332/08 T 0577/11 T 1222/11 T 0557/13 T 0951/20 T 1171/20 T 1286/23

Conclusion

For these reasons

the question of law referred to the Enlarged Board by the President of the EPO is to be answered as follows:

2. This also applies if a claim to priority is invalid due to the fact that the priority document, and the subsequent European application, do not concern the same invention because the European application claims subject-matter not disclosed in the priority document.