T 0276/99 (Publication of patent specification/PHILIPS) of 26.09.2001
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:2001:T027699.20010926
- Date of decision
- 26 September 2001
- Case number
- T 0276/99
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- 93203143.8
- 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
- -
- Application title
- Display device including a correction circuit, and correction circuit for use in said device
- Applicant name
- Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.
- Opponent name
- -
- Board
- 3.5.01
- Headnote
- -
- Relevant legal provisions
- Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Art 41(1)(2), 62(4)EC Treaty Art 28(ex 30), 234 (ex 177)European Patent Convention Art 123(2) 1973European Patent Convention Art 23(3) 1973European Patent Convention Art 65 1973European Patent Convention Art 69 1973European Patent Convention Art 83 1973European Patent Convention Art 84 1973European Patent Convention Art 93 1973European Patent Convention Art 97(1) 1973European Patent Convention Art 98 1973European Patent Convention R 27(1) 1973European Patent Convention R 34(1)(c) 1973European Patent Convention R 51(4) 1973European Patent Convention R 51(5) 1973German Basic Law (GG) Art 24(1)IntPatÜG Art .II(3) (German Law/Int. Patent Convention)Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) Art 30(3)
- Keywords
- Replacement of parts of the description by a reference to the A-publication (no)
Referral to Enlarged Board of Appeal (no)
Referral to Court of Justice of the European Communities (no) - Catchword
- (1) The description is an essential part of the patent specification for the purpose of understanding and being able to carry out the invention (Article 83 EPC) and for determining the scope of the claims pursuant to Article 69 EPC, and parts of the description cannot be replaced by a mere reference to the A-publication (even if this might save on translation costs).
(2) The provisions of the EPC, and the purpose of these, forbidding such replacement are clear, and no serious arguments based on the EC Treaty or the TRIPS Agreement exist which throw doubt on the matter or which raise anything that can be regarded as an important point of law that should be referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal, let alone the Court of Justice of the European Communities. A reference to the latter would in any case appear to have no basis under the EPC or the EC Treaty Article 234 (ex 177).
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The decision under appeal is set aside.
2. The request for referral of legal questions to the Court of Justice of the European Communities is refused.
3. The request for referral of legal questions to the Enlarged Board of Appeal is refused.
4. The matter is remitted to the Examining Division with the order to grant a patent on the basis of the text accompanying the Communication under Rule 51(4) EPC dated 21 January 1999.