T 0081/03 (Semiconductor memory device/RAMBUS) of 12.02.2004
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:2004:T008103.20040212
- Date of decision
- 12 February 2004
- Case number
- T 0081/03
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- 91908374.1
- 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
- Semiconductor memory device
- Applicant name
- Rambus Inc.
- Opponent name
- MICRON EUROPE Ltd et al
Infineon Technologies AG
Hynix Semiconductor Deutschland GmbH
MICRON Semiconductor Deutschland GmbH - Board
- 3.5.01
- Headnote
- -
- Relevant legal provisions
- European Patent Convention Art 114(2) 1973European Patent Convention Art 123(2) 1973European Patent Convention Art 123(3) 1973European Patent Convention Art 125 1973European Patent Convention Art 56 1973European Patent Convention Art 59 1973European Patent Convention R 27(1)(c) 1973Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 11(6)
- Keywords
- Amendments - extension of scope of protection (no)
Late filed requests - admissibility (auxiliary requests 3 to 5: no)
Decision re appeals - remittal (no)
Inventive step - (main request and auxiliary request 1: no - Catchword
- 1. Amendments to a European patent may be based on the whole reservoir of features originally disclosed in the corresponding application provided that Article 123(3) EPC is not infringed by such amendments, due account being taken of the stipulations of Article 69(1) EPC (point 3.9 of the reasons).
2. The general, abstract concern that the addition of a feature to a claim after grant leads to an extended scope of protection as the resulting combination of features might give rise to a different evaluation of equivalents in infringement proceedings is not in itself a sufficient reason for not allowing the addition of limiting features under Article 123(3) EPC (point 3.7 of the reasons).
3. Requests raising new issues which would require a further written phase in order to be properly dealt with are to be regarded as belated even if filed at a point in time just before the minimum period set by the Board in a summons to oral proceedings (point 2.4 of the reasons).
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The decision under appeal is set aside.
2. The patent is revoked.