T 0437/14 of 17.10.2016
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:2016:T043714.20161017
- Date of decision
- 17 October 2016
- Case number
- T 0437/14
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- 08003327.7
- IPC class
- H05B 33/14C09K 11/06H01L 51/30
- Language of proceedings
- English
- Distribution
- Published in the EPO's Official Journal (A)
- Download
- Decision in English
- Other decisions for this case
- T 0437/14 2019-03-12
- Abstracts for this decision
- -
- Application title
- Complexes of form L2IrX
- Applicant name
- The Trustees of Princeton University
The University of Southern California - Opponent name
- Merck Patent GmbH
Sumitomo Chemical Company Ltd.
BASF SE - Board
- 3.3.09
- Headnote
- -
- Relevant legal provisions
- European Patent Convention Art 100(c)European Patent Convention Art 123(2)European Patent Convention Art 54European Patent Convention Art 56European Patent Convention Art 83European Patent Convention Art 87(1)
- Keywords
- Grounds for opposition - subject-matter extends beyond content of earlier application
Amendments - undisclosed disclaimer
Fundamental question of law
Divergence in case law
Sufficiency of disclosure
Novelty over transient rather than intermediate product in prior art (point 5.4 of the reasons)
Inventive step
Validity of priority claim - Catchword
- The following questions are referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal for decision:
1. Is the standard referred to in G 2/10 for the allowability of disclosed disclaimers under Article 123(2) EPC, i.e. whether the skilled person would, using common general knowledge, regard the subject-matter remaining in the claim after the introduction of the disclaimer as explicitly or implicitly, but directly and unambiguously, disclosed in the application as filed, also to be applied to claims containing undisclosed disclaimers?
2. If the answer to the first question is yes, is G 1/03 set aside as regards the exceptions relating to undisclosed disclaimers defined in its answer 2.1?
3. If the answer to the second question is no, i.e. if the exceptions relating to undisclosed disclaimers defined in answer 2.1 of G 1/03 apply in addition to the standard referred to in G 2/10, may this standard be modified in view of these exceptions?
Order
For these reasons it is decided that:
The following questions are referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal for decision:
1. Is the standard referred to in G 2/10 for the allowability of disclosed disclaimers under Article 123(2) EPC, i.e. whether the skilled person would, using common general knowledge, regard the subject-matter remaining in the claim after the introduction of the disclaimer as explicitly or implicitly, but directly and unambiguously, disclosed in the application as filed, also to be applied to claims containing undisclosed disclaimers?
2. If the answer to the first question is yes, is G 1/03 set aside as regards the exceptions relating to undisclosed disclaimers defined in its answer 2.1?
3. If the answer to the second question is no, i.e. if the exceptions relating to undisclosed disclaimers defined in answer 2.1 of G 1/03 apply in addition to the gold standard, may this standard be modified in view of these exceptions?