T 0888/07 (Registering new location information and paging of mobile nodes in idle mode/LG) du 19.04.2011
- Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence
- ECLI:EP:BA:2011:T088807.20110419
- Date de la décision
- 19 avril 2011
- Numéro de l'affaire
- T 0888/07
- Requête en révision de
- -
- Numéro de la demande
- 02028666.2
- Classe de la CIB
- H04L 29/06
- 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
- System and method for mobility management of mobile IP terminals
- Nom du demandeur
- LG Electronics, Inc.
- Nom de l'opposant
- -
- Chambre
- 3.5.05
- Sommaire
- -
- Dispositions juridiques pertinentes
- European Patent Convention Art 106 1973European Patent Convention Art 107 1973European Patent Convention Art 108 1973European Patent Convention Art 113(1)European Patent Convention Art 113(2)European Patent Convention Art 123(2)European Patent Convention Art 52(1)European Patent Convention Art 54(2)European Patent Convention Art 56European Patent Convention Art 84European Patent Convention R 68(2) 1973European Patent Convention R 86(3) 1973
- Mots-clés
- Independent claims specifying all essential features of the invention - main request (no)
Clarity and support by the description - main request (no)
Justification for negative limitation in the independent claims - auxiliary request I (no)
Clarity - auxiliary request I (no)
Novelty and inventive step - auxiliary request II (yes - after amendment)
Right to be heard observed during first instance proceedings (yes)
Reimbursement of the appeal fee (no) - Exergue
- 1. If from the wording of an independent claim it must be concluded that a solution of the problem of the invention is achieved by not needing a step, whereas this very feature according to the description cannot be abolished, but is necessary for a workable solution, the board considers such a feature an essential feature of the invention. An independent claim missing this feature is therefore considered to be neither clear, nor supported by the description (see reasons 3.2).
2. If the examining division refuses consent to the latest submitted amended set of claims which had been put forward in substitution for the claims on file before under Rule 86(3) EPC 1973 the previous set of claims that the examining division had consented to consider but was not maintained as an auxiliary request is not automatically revived. In accordance with Article 113(2) EPC and established case law (see e.g. T 0237/96) a decision cannot be based on the previous set of claims (see reasons 8.2).
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The decision under appeal is set aside.
2. The case is remitted to the department of first instance with the order to grant a patent on the basis of auxiliary request II as filed during the oral proceedings before the Board (claims 1-13, description pages 1-3, 3a, 3b, 4-18, drawing sheets 1/7 - 7/7).