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. d) Necessary but not sufficient condition
Print
Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email

1.4.4 The essentiality or three-point test

Overview

d) Necessary but not sufficient condition

In T 437/17 the board, in line with several decisions such as T 1472/15 and T 1852/13, held that fulfilling the three criteria of the "essentiality test" as set out in T 331/87 (OJ 1991, 22) was a necessary requirement but not a sufficient one for compliance with Art. 123(2) EPC. The board further underlined that, in any case, this test could not replace the "gold standard" and should not lead to a different result than when applying the "gold standard" directly.

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