T 0133/85 (Amendments) of 25.08.1987
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:1987:T013385.19870825
- Date of decision
- 25 August 1987
- Case number
- T 0133/85
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- 80302390.2
- IPC class
- B65H 29/12
- Language of proceedings
- English
- Distribution
- Published in the EPO's Official Journal (A)
- Download
- Decision in English
- Other decisions for this case
- -
- Abstracts for this decision
- -
- Application title
- Document handling apparatus and method
- Applicant name
- Xerox yyyy
- Opponent name
- -
- Board
- 3.2.01
- Headnote
1. A claim which does not include a feature which is described in the application (on the proper interpretation of the description) as an essential feature of the invention, and which is therefore inconsistent with the description, is not supported by the description for the purpose of Article 84 EPC.
2. If such feature was described as an essential feature of the invention in the application as originally filed, an amendment to the description to provide support for such a claim (as in subparagraph 1 above) is not allowable under Article 123(2) EPC, because the amended description would contain subject-matter which extends beyond the content of the application as filed - namely information that such feature was not an essential feature of the invention.
- Relevant legal provisions
- European Patent Convention Art 123(2) 1973European Patent Convention Art 84 1973
- Keywords
- Claim not supported by description - essential feature missing in the claim
Added subject-matter deletion of essential feature in description - Catchword
- -
- Cited cases
- -
- Citing cases
- T 0248/88T 0748/89T 0496/90T 0603/90T 0770/90T 0441/92T 0939/92T 0012/93T 0169/93T 0322/93T 0556/93T 0583/93T 0659/93T 0189/94T 0034/95T 0128/95T 0482/95T 0616/95T 0740/97T 0895/97T 0687/98T 0973/98T 1151/98T 0101/99T 0677/00T 0732/00T 0143/04T 0273/04T 1211/05T 2049/10T 1727/12T 2001/12T 1461/14T 2613/18T 0056/21T 0821/24
ORDER
For these reasons, it is decided that:
1. The decision of the Examining Division of the European Patent Office, dated 4 January 1985, is set aside.
2. The main request of the Appellant is refused.
3. The case is remitted to the first instance with the order to complete the examination of the application on the basis of Claim 1 of the conditional submission B.