G 0003/95 (Inadmissible referral) du 27.11.1995
- Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence
- ECLI:EP:BA:1995:G000395.19951127
- Date de la décision
- 27 novembre 1995
- Numéro de l'affaire
- G 0003/95
- 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
- Autres décisions pour cet affaire
- -
- Résumés pour cette décision
- -
- Titre de la demande
- -
- Nom du demandeur
- -
- Nom de l'opposant
- -
- Chambre
- -
- Sommaire
1. In Decision T 356/93 (OJ EPO 1995, 545) it was held that a claim defining genetically modified plants having a distinct, stable, herbicide-resistance genetic characteristic was not allowable under Article 53(b) EPC because the claimed genetic modification itself made the modified or transformed plant a "plant variety" within the meaning of Article 53(b) EPC.
2. This finding is not in conflict with the findings in either of Decisions T 49/83 (OJ EPO 1984, 112) or T 19/90 (OJ EPO 1990, 476).
3. Consequently, the referral of the question:
Does a claim which relates to plants or animals but wherein specific plant or animal varieties are not individually claimed contravene the prohibition on patenting in Article 53(b) EPC if it embraces plant or animal varieties?"
to the Enlarged Board of Appeal by the President of the EPO is inadmissible under Article 112(1)(b) EPC.
- Dispositions juridiques pertinentes
- European Patent Convention Art 112(1)(b) 1973European Patent Convention Art 53(b) 1973
- Mots-clés
- Patentability of plant and animal varieties
No conflicting decisions
Inadmissible referral by the President of the EPO - Exergue
- -
- Affaires citées
- -
Conclusion
For these reasons, it is decided that:
The referral of the question of law set out in paragraph I above to the Enlarged Board of Appeal by the President of the EPO is inadmissible under Article 112(1)(b) EPC.