G 0003/93 (Priority interval) du 16.08.1994

Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence

ECLI:EP:BA:1994:G000393.19940816

Date de la décision

16 août 1994

Numéro de l'affaire

G 0003/93

Requête en révision de

Numéro de la demande

Classe de la CIB

Langue de la procédure

Anglais

Distribution

Publiées au Journal officiel de l'OEB (A)

Téléchargement

Décision en anglais

Versions JO

Autres décisions pour cet affaire

Résumés pour cette décision

Titre de la demande

Nom du demandeur

Nom de l'opposant

Chambre

Sommaire

1. A document published during the priority interval, the technical contents of which correspond to that of the priority document, constitutes prior art citable under Article 54(2) EPC against a European patent application claiming that priority, to the extent such priority is not validly claimed.

2. This also applies if a claim to priority is invalid due to the fact that the priority document and the subsequent European application do not concern the same invention because the European application claims subject-matter not disclosed in the priority document.

Dispositions juridiques pertinentes

European Patent Convention Art 54(2) 1973 European Patent Convention Art 87 1973 European Patent Convention Art 88 1973 European Patent Convention Art 89 1973

Mots-clés

Priority - document published during the priority interval
State of the art - document published during the priority interval
Invalid priority - different invention
Obiter dictum - admissibility of the referral

Exergue

Affaires citées

Affaires citantes

G 0002/98 G 0001/02 G 0002/02 G 0003/02 G 0003/08 G 0001/15 G 0003/19 G 0001/22 G 0002/22 T 0594/90 T 0961/90 T 0105/91 T 0189/91 T 0127/92 T 0293/92 T 0893/92 T 1054/92 T 0441/93 T 1052/93 T 1056/93 T 0178/94 T 0552/94 T 0816/94 T 0051/95 T 0136/95 T 0377/95 T 0560/95 T 0131/99 T 0507/99 T 0998/99 T 1084/99 T 0015/01 T 0910/06 T 1459/06 T 0680/08 T 2332/08 T 0577/11 T 1222/11 T 0557/13 T 0951/20 T 1171/20 T 1286/23

Conclusion

For these reasons

the question of law referred to the Enlarged Board by the President of the EPO is to be answered as follows:

2. This also applies if a claim to priority is invalid due to the fact that the priority document, and the subsequent European application, do not concern the same invention because the European application claims subject-matter not disclosed in the priority document.