T 0081/03 (Semiconductor memory device/RAMBUS) du 12.02.2004
- Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence
- ECLI:EP:BA:2004:T008103.20040212
- Date de la décision
- 12 février 2004
- Numéro de l'affaire
- T 0081/03
- Requête en révision de
- -
- Numéro de la demande
- 91908374.1
- Classe de la CIB
- G06F 12/02G06F 13/16G06F 12/06G06F 13/376
- Langue de la procédure
- Anglais
- Distribution
- Distribuées aux présidents et aux membres des chambres de recours (B)
- Téléchargement
- Décision en anglais
- Versions JO
- Aucun lien JO trouvé
- Autres décisions pour cet affaire
- -
- Résumés pour cette décision
- -
- Titre de la demande
- Semiconductor memory device
- Nom du demandeur
- Rambus Inc.
- Nom de l'opposant
- MICRON EUROPE Ltd et al
Infineon Technologies AG
Hynix Semiconductor Deutschland GmbH
MICRON Semiconductor Deutschland GmbH - Chambre
- 3.5.01
- Sommaire
- -
- Dispositions juridiques pertinentes
- European Patent Convention Art 114(2) 1973European Patent Convention Art 123(2) 1973European Patent Convention Art 123(3) 1973European Patent Convention Art 125 1973European Patent Convention Art 56 1973European Patent Convention Art 59 1973European Patent Convention R 27(1)(c) 1973Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 11(6)
- Mots-clés
- Amendments - extension of scope of protection (no)
Late filed requests - admissibility (auxiliary requests 3 to 5: no)
Decision re appeals - remittal (no)
Inventive step - (main request and auxiliary request 1: no - Exergue
- 1. Amendments to a European patent may be based on the whole reservoir of features originally disclosed in the corresponding application provided that Article 123(3) EPC is not infringed by such amendments, due account being taken of the stipulations of Article 69(1) EPC (point 3.9 of the reasons).
2. The general, abstract concern that the addition of a feature to a claim after grant leads to an extended scope of protection as the resulting combination of features might give rise to a different evaluation of equivalents in infringement proceedings is not in itself a sufficient reason for not allowing the addition of limiting features under Article 123(3) EPC (point 3.7 of the reasons).
3. Requests raising new issues which would require a further written phase in order to be properly dealt with are to be regarded as belated even if filed at a point in time just before the minimum period set by the Board in a summons to oral proceedings (point 2.4 of the reasons).
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The decision under appeal is set aside.
2. The patent is revoked.