T 1080/01 (Thermostable enzyme/F. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE) of 24.10.2003
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:2003:T108001.20031024
- Date of decision
- 24 October 2003
- Case number
- T 1080/01
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- 87307433.0
- IPC class
- C12N 15/10
- Language of proceedings
- English
- Distribution
- Distributed to board chairmen (C)
- Download
- Decision in English
- OJ versions
- No OJ links found
- Other decisions for this case
- -
- Abstracts for this decision
- -
- Application title
- Purified thermostable enzyme and process for amplifying, detecting, and/or cloning nucleic acid sequences using said enzyme
- Applicant name
- F. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE AG
- Opponent name
- New England Biolabs Inc.
Bioline (UK) Ltd
Promega Corporation
Becton, Dickinson and Company - Board
- 3.3.08
- Headnote
- -
- Relevant legal provisions
- European Patent Convention Art 104(1) 1973European Patent Convention Art 114(1) 1973European Patent Convention Art 123(2) 1973European Patent Convention Art 54 1973European Patent Convention Art 56 1973European Patent Convention Art 83 1973European Patent Convention Art 84 1973European Patent Convention Art 87 1973European Patent Convention R 23c 1973European Patent Convention R 57a 1973
- Keywords
- Main request: allowability of amendments (no)
Auxiliary request: allowability of amendments (yes)
Entitlement of claim 1 to the earlier priority date (yes)
Clarity (yes)
Sufficiency of disclosure (yes)
Novelty (yes)
Inventive step (yes)
Apportionment of costs (no) - Catchword
- -
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The decision under appeal is set aside.
2. The case is remitted to the first instance with the order to maintain the patent on the basis of:
- claims 1 to 28 of the auxiliary request filed at oral proceedings for the designated states BE, CH, LI, DE, FR, GB, GR, IT, LU, NL and SE,
- claims 1 to 51 of the auxiliary request filed at oral proceedings for the designated states AT and ES,
- amended description filed at oral proceedings, and
- drawings as originally filed.
3. The request for apportionment of costs is refused.