T 0373/12 (Examination of clarity of amended claims by opposition divisions and boards of appeal) of 02.04.2014
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:2014:T037312.20140402
- Date of decision
- 2 April 2014
- Case number
- T 0373/12
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- 05851833.3
- IPC class
- B28B 1/00B29C 33/40A61F 2/78
- Language of proceedings
- English
- Distribution
- No distribution (D)
- Download
- Decision in English
- Other decisions for this case
- T 0373/12 2015-10-29
- Abstracts for this decision
- -
- Application title
- NOVEL ENHANCED COATING FOR PROSTHETIC LINERS PROCESSES, PRODUCTS AND IMPROVED UMBRELLAS
- Applicant name
- Freedom Innovations, LLC
- Opponent name
- Otto Bock HealthCare GmbH
- Board
- 3.2.08
- Headnote
- -
- Relevant legal provisions
- European Patent Convention Art 100European Patent Convention Art 101European Patent Convention Art 112(1)(a)European Patent Convention Art 84
- Keywords
- Referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal
Authorisation of opposition divisions and boards of appeal to examine clarity objections - Catchword
- The following questions are referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal:
1. Is the term "amendments" as used in decision G 9/91 of the Enlarged Board of Appeal (see point 3.2.1) to be understood as encompassing a literal insertion of (a) elements of dependent claims as granted and/or (b) complete dependent claims as granted into an independent claim, so that opposition divisions and boards of appeal are required by Article 101(3) EPC always to examine the clarity of independent claims thus amended during the proceedings?
2. If the Enlarged Board of Appeal answers Question 1 in the affirmative, is then an examination of the clarity of the independent claim in such cases limited to the inserted features or may it extend to features already contained in the unamended independent claim?
3. If the Enlarged Board answers Question 1 in the negative, is then an examination of the clarity of independent claims thus amended always excluded?
4. If the Enlarged Board comes to the conclusion that an examination of the clarity of independent claims thus amended is neither always required nor always excluded, what then are the conditions to be applied in deciding whether an examination of clarity comes into question in a given case?
Order
For these reasons it is decided that:
The following questions are referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal:
1. Is the term "amendments" as used in decision G 9/91 of the Enlarged Board of Appeal (see point 3.2.1) to be understood as encompassing a literal insertion of (a) elements of dependent claims as granted and/or (b) complete dependent claims as granted into an independent claim, so that opposition divisions and boards of appeal are required by Article 101(3) EPC always to examine the clarity of independent claims thus amended during the proceedings?
2. If the Enlarged Board of Appeal answers Question 1 in the affirmative, is then an examination of the clarity of the independent claim in such cases limited to the inserted features or may it extend to features already contained in the unamended independent claim?
3. If the Enlarged Board answers Question 1 in the negative, is then an examination of the clarity of independent claims thus amended always excluded?
4. If the Enlarged Board comes to the conclusion that an examination of the clarity of independent claims thus amended is neither always required nor always excluded, what then are the conditions to be applied in deciding whether an examination of clarity comes into question in a given case?