T 0131/15 of 10.10.2019
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:2019:T013115.20191010
- Date of decision
- 10 October 2019
- Case number
- T 0131/15
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- 02258600.2
- IPC class
- G07D 7/12
- 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
- Apparatus for sensing optical characteristics of a banknote
- Applicant name
- Crane Payment Innovations, Inc.
- Opponent name
- Giesecke+Devrient Currency Technology GmbH
- Board
- 3.4.03
- Headnote
- -
- Relevant legal provisions
- EPC2000_Art_069_Protocol_InterpretationEuropean Patent Convention Art 100(a) 1973European Patent Convention Art 100(b) 1973European Patent Convention Art 100(c) 1973European Patent Convention Art 101(3)(a)European Patent Convention Art 111(1) 1973European Patent Convention Art 123(2) 1973European Patent Convention Art 123(3) 1973European Patent Convention Art 52(1) 1973European Patent Convention Art 54 1973European Patent Convention Art 56 1973European Patent Convention Art 69(1) 1973European Patent Convention Art 84 1973Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 12(4)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 13(1)
- Keywords
- Amendments - added subject-matter (no)
Amendments - broadening of claim (no)
Novelty - (yes)
Inventive step - (yes) - Catchword
- See Reasons, point 5.11:
Where an expression in a granted claim, taken literally and in isolation, would have the effect of excluding all of the disclosed embodiments from the scope of protection, but where a definition of the expression may be derived from the patent itself which would locate (at least some of) the disclosed embodiments within the ambit of the claim, and provided this definition is not manifestly unreasonable, having regard to the normal meaning of the words used in the expression, then in judging compliance with the requirements of Article 123(3) EPC, the scope of protection should normally be considered to include at least that which would fall within the terms of the claim understood according to this definition. - Cited cases
- G 0002/88
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 with the order to maintain the patent in the following version:
- Claims 1 - 16 of Auxiliary Request 7 filed on 10 September 2019;
- Description pages 2 and 5 as filed during oral proceedings, and pages 3 and 4 of the patent specification;
- Figures 1 - 8 of the patent specification.