T 1020/98 (Safeners/BAYER) of 27.06.2003
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:2003:T102098.20030627
- Date of decision
- 27 June 2003
- Case number
- T 1020/98
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- 93112074.5
- IPC class
- C07C 69/712
- Language of proceedings
- German
- Distribution
- Published in the EPO's Official Journal (A)
- Download
- Decision in German
- Other decisions for this case
- -
- Abstracts for this decision
- -
- Application title
- Substituierte (Hetero-)Arylverbindungen, Verfahren zu deren Herstellung, diese enthaltenden Mittel und deren Verwendung als Safener
- Applicant name
- Bayer CropScience GmbH
- Opponent name
- -
- Board
- 3.3.01
- Headnote
I. Compliance with the clarity requirement of Article 84 EPC is not dependent on the time required to establish whether a given compound is covered by the product claim. The clarity requirement is not a basis for objecting to the complexity of a claim, as complexity is not tantamount to lack of clarity. The simplicity of an individual claim is not a criterion for the granting of a patent under the EPC.
II. A Markush formula is the concisest means of defining a class of chemical compounds in a claim.
III. There is no legal basis in the EPC for a request to restrict the content of an independent claim so that substantive examination can be carried out with greater ease and less effort. Furthermore, under the EPC, making the examining division's work easier is not a prerequisite for starting substantive examination of a patent application.
- Relevant legal provisions
- European Patent Convention Art 111(1) 1973European Patent Convention Art 84 1973
- Keywords
- Clarity (yes) - complex claim not unclear - within reasonable time - Markush formula - hierarchical structure of substituent definitions
Conciseness (yes) - Markush formula the most concise formulation of a class of chemical compounds - greater ease of substantive examination not determinative of the content of an independent claim - Catchword
- -
- Citing cases
- T 0813/03
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The decision under appeal is set aside.
2. The case is remitted to the first instance for further prosecution on the basis of claims 1 to 14 according to the main request.