T 0922/01 du 09.07.2003

Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence: ECLI:EP:BA:2003:T092201.20030709
Date de la décision: 9 juilliet 2003
Numéro de l'affaire: T 0922/01
Requête en révision de: -
Numéro de la demande: 89904212.1
Classe de la CIB: G01N 27/327 G01N 27/30 G01N 27/28 C12M 1/40
Langue de la procédure: Anglais
Distribution: Distribuées aux présidents des chambres de recours (C)
Téléchargement: Décision en anglais
Versions JO: Aucun lien JO trouvé
Autres décisions pour cet affaire: -
Résumés pour cette décision: -
Titre de la demande: Biosensor and process for its production
Nom du demandeur: MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD.
Nom de l'opposant: Inverness Medical Technology, Inc.
Roche Diagnostics Corporation (opposition withdrawn)
Chambre: 3.4.02
Sommaire: -
Dispositions juridiques pertinentes: European Patent Convention Art 100(a) 1973 European Patent Convention Art 100(c) 1973 European Patent Convention Art 102(3) 1973 European Patent Convention Art 111(1) 1973 European Patent Convention Art 111(2) 1973 European Patent Convention Art 113(1) 1973 European Patent Convention Art 114(1) 1973 European Patent Convention Art 114(2) 1973 European Patent Convention Art 123(2) 1973 European Patent Convention Art 123(3) 1973 European Patent Convention Art 150(3) 1973 European Patent Convention Art 158(3) 1973 European Patent Convention Art 52(1) 1973 European Patent Convention Art 54 1973 European Patent Convention Art 56 1973 European Patent Convention R 27(1) 1973 European Patent Convention R 65(1) 1973 European Patent Convention R 71(2) 1973 European Patent Convention R 88 1973Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 11(3)
Mots-clés: Added subject-matter (no) - on the basis of the international application filed in Japanese
Withdrawal of one of the oppositions
Fresh ground of opposition - no comment of the patent proprietors
Novelty and inventive step (yes)
Remittal for adaption of the description
Exergue: -
Affaires citées: G 0009/91 G 0010/91 G 0011/91 G 0008/93 T 0789/89
Affaires citantes: -

ORDER

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The decision under appeal is set aside.

2. The case is remitted to the opposition division with the order to maintain the patent in amended form as follows:

- claims 1 to 14 of the only request presented at the oral proceedings;

- description to be adapted, subject to replacement of the expression "embodiment of the prior art" in column 5, line 10 of the patent specification by "embodiment of the invention"; and

- drawings as granted.