European Patent Office

T 0872/09 du 08.04.2014

Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence
ECLI:EP:BA:2014:T087209.20140408
Date de la décision
8 avril 2014
Numéro de l'affaire
T 0872/09
Requête en révision de
-
Numéro de la demande
01924446.6
Classe de la CIB
G01N 27/327C12Q 1/00
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
RAPID RESPONSE GLUCOSE SENSOR
Nom du demandeur
Diabetes Diagnostics, Inc.
Nom de l'opposant
Roche Diagnostics GmbH
Chambre
3.4.02
Sommaire
-
Dispositions juridiques pertinentes
European Patent Convention Art 54 1973European Patent Convention R 106Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 12(4)
Mots-clés
Novelty - (no)
Novelty - ambiguous feature
Late-filed request - admitted (no)
Late-filed request - request not defended before opposition division
Exergue
1. Novelty
The claimed sensor is defined by reference to characteristics of its response when used in a measurement set-up. Since none of the determining aspects of the measurement set-up is defined in claim 1, the technical features of the claimed sensor which are responsible for providing the measurement referred to in the claim remain obscure.
Legal certainty requires that a claimed subject-matter cannot be regarded as novel over the prior art on the basis of an ambiguous feature. Hence, defining a functional feature of the claimed sensor under undefined operating conditions is not appropriate to provide any distinction of the claimed sensor over the prior art sensors (see points 1.2 and 1.3 of the Reasons)
2. Admittance of auxiliary requests
None of the patentee's auxiliary requests were admitted into the proceedings because the patentee, during the first-instance opposition proceedings, deliberately chose not to defend any single auxiliary request, even though it was aware of the fact that its main request had not been found allowable by the opposition division (see points 2 and 3 of the Reasons).

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The objection under Rule 106 EPC is dismissed.

2. The appeal is dismissed.