G 0003/95 (Inadmissible referral) of 27.11.1995
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:1995:G000395.19951127
- Date of decision
- 27 November 1995
- Case number
- G 0003/95
- 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
- Other decisions for this case
- -
- Abstracts for this decision
- -
- Application title
- -
- Applicant name
- -
- Opponent name
- -
- Board
- -
- Headnote
1. In Decision T 356/93 (OJ EPO 1995, 545) it was held that a claim defining genetically modified plants having a distinct, stable, herbicide-resistance genetic characteristic was not allowable under Article 53(b) EPC because the claimed genetic modification itself made the modified or transformed plant a "plant variety" within the meaning of Article 53(b) EPC.
2. This finding is not in conflict with the findings in either of Decisions T 49/83 (OJ EPO 1984, 112) or T 19/90 (OJ EPO 1990, 476).
3. Consequently, the referral of the question:
Does a claim which relates to plants or animals but wherein specific plant or animal varieties are not individually claimed contravene the prohibition on patenting in Article 53(b) EPC if it embraces plant or animal varieties?"
to the Enlarged Board of Appeal by the President of the EPO is inadmissible under Article 112(1)(b) EPC.
- Relevant legal provisions
- European Patent Convention Art 112(1)(b) 1973European Patent Convention Art 53(b) 1973
- Keywords
- Patentability of plant and animal varieties
No conflicting decisions
Inadmissible referral by the President of the EPO - Catchword
- -
- Cited cases
- -
Conclusion
For these reasons, it is decided that:
The referral of the question of law set out in paragraph I above to the Enlarged Board of Appeal by the President of the EPO is inadmissible under Article 112(1)(b) EPC.