European Patent Office
2003

5 - May

Overview

Index
1 - January
2 - February
3 - March
4 - April
5 - May
6 - June
7 - July
8-9 - August - September
10 - October
11 - November
12 - December
Supplements / Special editions
Supplement to OJ 1/2003
Special edition No. 1
Special edition No. 2
Special edition No. 3
Supplement to OJ 12/2003

    Page 182

    Citation: OJ EPO 2003, 182

    Online publication date: 31.5.2003

    BOARDS OF APPEAL
    Information from the Enlarged Board of Appeal

    Referrals by boards of appeal

    By decision T 507/99 dated 20 December 2002, Technical Board of Appeal 3.3.5 has referred the following point of law to the Enlarged Board of Appeal under Article 112(1)(a) EPC:

    (Language of the proceedings)

    1. Is an amendment to a claim by the introduction of a disclaimer unallowable under Article 123(2) EPC for the sole reason that neither the disclaimer nor the subject-matter excluded by it from the scope of the claim have a basis in the application as filed?

    2. If the answer to question 1 is no, which criteria are to be applied in order to determine whether or not a disclaimer is allowable?

    (a) In particular, is it of relevance whether the claim is to be delimited against a state of the art according to Article 54(3) EPC or against a state of the art according to Article 54(2) EPC?

    (b) Is it necessary that the subject-matter excluded by the disclaimer be strictly confined to that disclosed in a particular piece of prior art?

    (c) Is it of relevance whether the disclaimer is needed to make the claimed subject-matter novel over the prior art?

    (d) Is the criterion applicable that the disclosure must be accidental, as established by prior jurisprudence, and, if yes, when is a disclosure to be regarded as being accidental, or

    (e) is the approach to be applied that a disclaimer which is confined to disclaiming the prior art and has not been disclosed in the application as filed is allowable under Article 123(2) EPC, but that the examination of the subject-matter claimed for the presence of an inventive step has then to be carried out as if the disclaimer did not exist?

    The case is pending as G 1/03.

    Service & support

    • Website updates
    • Availability of online services
    • FAQ
    • Publications
    • Procedural communications
    • Contact us
    • Subscription centre
    • Official holidays
    • Glossary

    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
    Legal noticeTerms of useData protection and privacyAccessibility