T 0990/07 of 23.02.2010
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:2010:T099007.20100223
- Date of decision
- 23 February 2010
- Case number
- T 0990/07
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- 04255379.2
- 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
- Portable terminal apparatus
- Applicant name
- FUJITSU LIMITED
- Opponent name
- -
- Board
- 3.4.01
- Headnote
The purpose of the "examples" evoked in Rule 27(1)(e) EPC 1973 appears primarily to be to complete an otherwise incomplete teaching. As a consequence, the application cannot be refused under this provision if the description is considered to describe, despite the presence of erroneous drawings and the resulting lack of examples actually embodying the invention, "one way of carrying out the invention" (cf. point 3).
- Relevant legal provisions
- European Patent Convention Art 123(2) 1973European Patent Convention Art 54European Patent Convention Art 56European Patent Convention Art 83European Patent Convention Art 84European Patent Convention R 27(1)(e) 1973
- Keywords
- Sufficiency of disclosure despite the absence of examples embodying the invention (yes)
Intermediate generalisation (allowable)
Clarity (yes)
Novelty -inventive step (yes) - Catchword
- -
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The decision under appeal is set aside.
2. The case is remitted to the examining division with the order to grant a patent on the basis of the appellant's main request, i.e.:
- claims: 1-5 as approved by the appellant (cf. annex to the attendance note about a phone conversation held on 29 January 2010).
- description pages: 1-14 as approved by the appellant (cf. annex to the attendance note about a phone conversation held on 29 January 2010).
- drawing sheets 1/9 - 9/9 as originally filed.