T 2001/12 of 29.01.2015

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2015:T200112.20150129
Date of decision: 29 January 2015
Case number: T 2001/12
Petition for review of: -
Application number: 08764638.6
IPC class: H01L 29/423 H01L 21/336 H01L 29/788 H01L 29/792 H01L 29/06 H01L 21/28
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: MEMORY DEVICE AND ITS READING METHOD
Applicant name: National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science
and Technology
Opponent name: -
Board: 3.4.03
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions: European Patent Convention Art 111(1) 1973 European Patent Convention Art 123(2)European Patent Convention Art 54 1973 European Patent Convention Art 56 1973 European Patent Convention Art 83 1973 European Patent Convention Art 84 1973
Keywords: Sufficiency of disclosure - (yes)
Claims - essential features
Claims - relationship between Article 83 and Article 84
Claims - clarity - main request (yes)
Catchword: An objection of insufficient disclosure under Article 83 EPC 1973 cannot legitimately be based on an argument that the application would not enable a skilled person to achieve a non-claimed technical effect (point 3.4).
A doubt that the invention as claimed is capable of solving the problem defined in the application may have the following consequences:
a) If the question arises because the claim fails to specify those features which are disclosed in the application as providing the solution to the problem, then the description and claims are inconsistent in relation to the definition of the invention, and an objection under Article 84 EPC 1973 may properly arise that the claims do not contain all the essential features necessary to specify the invention.
b) If this is not the case, but, having regard to the prior art, and irrespective of what may be asserted in the description, it does not appear credible that the invention as claimed would actually be capable of solving the problem, then an objection under Article 56 EPC 1973 may be raised (point 4.4).
Cited cases: G 0001/03 T 0032/82 T 0133/85 T 0939/92 T 0260/98 T 0400/98 T 0813/03 T 1079/08
Citing cases: T 0862/11 T 0863/12 T 1216/12 T 0206/13 T 0692/13 T 2135/13 T 2338/13 T 0603/14 T 1180/14 T 1291/14 T 1744/14 T 2180/14 T 0012/15 T 0062/15 T 0473/15 T 2135/15 T 2284/15 T 0258/16 T 1137/16 T 1502/16 T 2210/16 T 2530/16 T 1938/17 T 0899/18 T 1780/19 T 2246/19 T 0110/21 T 0476/21 T 1480/21 T 1891/21 T 0103/22 T 2015/23

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The decision under appeal is set aside.

2. The case is remitted to the department of first instance for further prosecution.