1.4. Removal or replacement of features from a claim
  1. Home
  2. Legal texts
  3. Case Law of the Boards of Appeal
  4. Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office
  5. II. Patent application and amendments
  6. E. Amendments
  7. 1. Article 123(2) EPC
  8. 1.4. Removal or replacement of features from a claim
  9. 1.4.4 The essentiality or three-point test
  10. b) Mere aid in assessing the allowability of amendments
Print
Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email

1.4.4 The essentiality or three-point test

Overview

b) Mere aid in assessing the allowability of amendments

The board in T 1472/15, citing T 2311/10 and T 1852/13, held that, contrary to how T 331/87 had often been misinterpreted, the "essentiality test" was not absolute vis-à-vis the "gold standard" and could merely be used as an aid in ascertaining what had been originally disclosed (see also e.g. T 648/10, T 755/12, T 2095/12, T 2599/12, T 46/15, T 1420/15, T 85/16 and T 1189/16). The "essentiality test" cannot take the place of the "gold standard" (T 172/17 and T 1134/19).

Previous
Next
Footer - Service & support
  • Service & support
    • Website updates
    • Availability of online services
    • FAQ
    • Publications
    • Procedural communications
    • Contact us
    • Subscription centre
    • Official holidays
    • Glossary
Footer - More links
  • Jobs & careers
  • Press centre
  • Single Access Portal
  • Procurement
  • Boards of Appeal
Facebook
European Patent Office
EPO Jobs
Instagram
EuropeanPatentOffice
Linkedin
European Patent Office
EPO Jobs
EPO Procurement
X (formerly Twitter)
EPOorg
EPOjobs
Youtube
TheEPO
Footer
  • Legal notice
  • Terms of use
  • Data protection and privacy
  • Accessibility