T 0371/88 (Transmission apparatus) of 29.05.1990

European Case Law Identifier

ECLI:EP:BA:1990:T037188.19900529

Date of decision

29 May 1990

Case number

T 0371/88

Petition for review of

Application number

80304241.5

IPC class

F16H 1/38 B60K 5/04 B60K 17/34

Language of proceedings

English

Distribution

Published in the EPO's Official Journal (A)

Download

Decision in English

OJ versions

Other decisions for this case

Abstracts for this decision

Application title

Applicant name

Fuji

Opponent name

Steyr-Daimler-Puch

Board

3.2.01

Headnote

The amendment of a granted claim to replace a restrictive term, which in its strict literal meaning does not clearly embrace a further embodiment of the description, by a less restrictive term clearly embracing also this embodiment, is permissible under Article 123(3) EPC, if the examination of the extent of protection conferred by the granted claim results in the following conclusions:

(a) The restrictive term in the granted claim is not so clear in its technical meaning in the given context that it could be used to determine the extent of protection without interpretation by reference to the description and the drawings of the patent;

(b) It is quite clear from the description and the drawings of the patent and also from the examination procedure up to grant that the further embodiment belongs to the invention and that it was never intended to exclude it from protection conferred by the

Relevant legal provisions

European Patent Convention Art 123(3) 1973 European Patent Convention Art 56 1973 European Patent Convention Art 69 1973

Keywords

Extension of the protection by broadening a restrictive term in a claim during opposition proceedings
Inventive step (yes)

Catchword

Cited cases

Citing cases

T 0673/89 T 0738/95 T 0259/96 T 1011/96 T 0438/98 T 0494/98 T 0140/99 T 0301/00 T 0750/02 T 0749/03 T 0139/05 T 1433/05 T 0837/07 T 0824/08 T 1172/08 T 1147/11 T 1578/13 T 1127/16 T 1946/16 T 2451/22

ORDER

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The impugned decision is set aside.

2. The case is remitted to the first instance with the order to maintain the patent on the basis of Claim 1 according to the main request as presented at the oral proceedings, Claim 2 and description as amended during the opposition proceedings and further corrected on page 1a according to point 7 of the Decision, together with the drawings as granted.