European Patent Office
2008

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 1/2008
Special edition No. 1
Supplement to OJ 7/2008
Supplement to OJ 12/2008

    Pages 307-308

    Citation: OJ EPO 2008, 307

    Online publication date: 30.5.2008

    BOARDS OF APPEAL
    Decisions of the Enlarged Board of Appeal

    Decision of the Enlarged Board of Appeal dated 28 June 2007 - G 1/061

    (Language of the proceedings)

    Composition of the board:

    Chairman:

    P. Messerli

    Members:

    S. Perryman

     

    P. Alting Van Geusau

     

    B. Günzel

     

    C. Holtz

     

    A. Nuss

     

    Sir N. Pumfrey

    Applicant: SEIKO EPSON CORPORATION

    Headword: Sequences of divisionals/SEIKO

    Article: 54(3), 75(2), 76(1)(2)(3), 77(5), 82, 96(2), 97(1), 100(c), 102(3), 112(1)(a), 113(1), 123(1)(2), 138(1)(c) and 138(2) EPC 1973

    Rule: 25(1)(2), 51(2), 86(3), 86(4) EPC 1973

    RPEBA Art. 8

    UK Patents Act 1977: Sections 76(1), 130(7)

    Keyword: "Invalidity as a result of non-compliance with Article 76(1) EPC on filing a divisional application - no" - "Amendment to conform with Article 76(1) EPC - allowable, even if at time of amendment earlier application no longer pending" - "Content of a member of a sequence of divisional applications must be disclosed in each of the preceding applications in the sequence as filed" - "Claims of a member of a sequence of divisional applications need not be directed to subject-matter within the scope of the claims of the preceding applications in the sequence as filed"

    Headnote:

    In the case of a sequence of applications consisting of a root (originating) application followed by divisional applications, each divided from its predecessor, it is a necessary and sufficient condition for a divisional application of that sequence to comply with Article 76(1), second sentence, EPC that anything disclosed in that divisional application be directly and unambiguously derivable from what is disclosed in each of the preceding applications as filed.

     

     

    1 The Summary of facts and submissions and Reasons for the decision are identical in their wording to the corresponding section of decision G 1/05, OJ EPO 2008, 271 (in this issue).

    The proceedings were consolidated. Therefore this is an abridged version of the decision. A copy of the full text in the language of proceedings may be obtained from the EPO Information Desk in Munich on payment of a photocopying fee of EUR 0.70 per page.

    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