T 1404/05 of 24.05.2007
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:2007:T140405.20070524
- Date of decision
- 24 May 2007
- Case number
- T 1404/05
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- 96926288.0
- IPC class
- B01D 63/02
- 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
- Vertical skein of hollow fiber membranes and method of maintaining clean fiber surfaces
- Applicant name
- Zenon Technology Partnership
- Opponent name
- MEMCOR AUSTRALIA PTY LTD.
- Board
- 3.3.07
- Headnote
- -
- Relevant legal provisions
- European Patent Convention Art 100(b) 1973European Patent Convention Art 100(c) 1973European Patent Convention Art 111(1) 1973European Patent Convention Art 123(2) 1973European Patent Convention Art 123(3) 1973European Patent Convention R 57a 1973
- Keywords
- Main Request - extension of the subject-matter of the patent as granted beyond the content of the application as filed - (no)
Main Request - insufficiency of disclosure - (yes)
Auxiliary Request - Admissible (yes)
Auxiliary Request - extension of the subject-matter of the patent as granted beyond the content of the application as filed - (no)
Auxiliary Request - Amendments - extension of the subject-matter of the application as filed (no) - extension of the protection conferred by the patent as granted (no) - allowable (yes)
Auxiliary Request - Remittal (yes) - Catchword
- Where a claim is vaguely formulated and leaves several constructions open as possibilities, and on one of these constructions part of the subject-matter claimed is not sufficiently described to be carried out, the claim is open to objection under Article 100(b) EPC. To avoid this objection the claim needs to be explicitly restricted to a construction which is also possible on the vague formulation of the claim, but which construction is not open to an Article 100(b) EPC objection. The mere fact that the description makes clear that this latter construction is the one intended does not mean that the claim can be treated as being confined to this latter construction. Article 69 EPC and its protocol were intended to assist a patent proprietor in contending for a broader interpretation of a claim than perhaps its wording warranted, not for cutting down the scope of a claim (see points 3.1 to 3.7).
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 for further prosecution on the basis of the three claims of the Auxiliary Request filed during the oral proceedings of 24 May 2007.