T 2027/23 (Turnable ladder/IVECO) of 30.06.2025
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:2025:T202723.20250630
- Date of decision
- 30 June 2025
- Case number
- T 2027/23
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- 14173886.4
- 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
- Abstract on Article 069 EPC
- Application title
- Control system and method for controlling the movement of an aerial apparatus
- Applicant name
- IVECO MAGIRUS AG
- Opponent name
- Rosenbauer International AG
- Board
- 3.5.05
- Headnote
- -
- Relevant legal provisions
- European Patent Convention Art 100(a)European Patent Convention Art 112(1)(a)European Patent Convention Art 113(1)European Patent Convention Art 125European Patent Convention Art 54European Patent Convention R 103(1)(a)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 12(6)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 13(2)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 21
- Keywords
- Claim construction - description and drawings "consulted" and "referred to" for defining the skilled reader of a claim: narrow claim interpretation not accepted
Errors in the opposition division's fact-finding process - (no)
Public prior use as valid state of the art - (yes): public availability sufficiently proven
Novelty - main request and 3rd to 6th auxiliary requests (no)
Admittance of non-admitted claim requests - 1st and 2nd auxiliary requests (no): no error in the use of discretion + no prima facie allowability
Admittance of claim requests filed after Art. 15(1) RPBA communication - 7th and 8th auxiliary requests (no): no "exceptional circumstances" - Catchword
- A claim should not be interpreted, based on features set out in embodiments of an invention, as having a meaning narrower than the wording of the claim as understood by the person skilled in the art. In cases of discrepancy between the claim language and the description, it falls upon the patentee to remedy this incongruence by amending the claim. It is not the task of the Boards of Appeal to reach such alignment by way of interpretative somersaults (see points 3.5.6 and 3.5.8 of the Reasons).
Order
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The request for a referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal is refused.
2. The appeal is dismissed.