T 0500/01 (Humanized Immunoglobulins/PROTEIN DESIGN LABS, INC.) of 12.11.2003

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2003:T050001.20031112
Date of decision: 12 November 2003
Case number: T 0500/01
Petition for review of: -
Application number: 90903576.8
IPC class: C12P 21/08
Language of proceedings: English
Distribution: Distributed to board chairmen and members (B)
Download: Decision in English
OJ versions: No OJ links found
Other decisions for this case: -
Abstracts for this decision: -
Application title: Humanized Immunoglobulins and their production and use
Applicant name: PROTEIN DESIGN LABS, INC.
Opponent name: 02. ICOS Corp.
03. Novartis AG
04. Celltech Therapeutics Ltd
05. Bayer AG
06. Chiron Corporation
08. Genentech, Inc.
09. IDEC Pharmaceuticals Corpn
10. Biotest Pharma GmbH
11. Biotransplant, Inc
12. Bristol-Myers Company
13. GLAXO GROUP LIMITED
14. Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH
17. Schering Corporation
18. Ixsys, Inc
Board: 3.3.04
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions: European Patent Convention Art 111 1973 European Patent Convention Art 123(2) 1973 European Patent Convention Art 123(3) 1973 European Patent Convention Art 84 1973
Keywords: Main request and auxiliary request I - added matter (yes)
Auxiliary request II - added matter (no), clarity (yes)
Remittal - (yes)
Catchword: According to Article 123(2) EPC, a European patent application or a European patent may not be amended in such a way that it contains subject-matter which extends beyond the content of the application as filed. A claim, the wording of which is essentially identical to a claim as originally filed, can nevertheless contravene the requirements of Article 123(2) EPC, if it contains a feature whose definition has been amended in the description in a non-allowable way. The specific definition of a feature, which according to the description is an overriding requirement of the claimed invention, is applied by a skilled reader to interpret this feature whenever it is mentioned in the patent (see points (11) to (15) of the Reasons for the Decision).
Cited cases: G 0009/91 G 0010/91 J 0016/90 T 0577/97 T 0190/99 T 0243/99
Citing cases: T 0061/03 T 0499/03 T 0742/04 T 0843/04 T 0725/05 T 0452/08 T 0620/08 T 0269/09 T 0343/09 T 0852/09 T 1388/09 T 2045/09 T 1147/11 T 1221/19 T 0471/20 T 0439/22

ORDER

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The appeal of Opponents 18 is rejected as inadmissible.

2. The decision under appeal is set aside.

3. The matter is remitted to the first instance for further prosecution on the basis of claims 1 to 15 of auxiliary request II filed on 22 June 2001.