T 0571/10 du 03.06.2014
- Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence
- ECLI:EP:BA:2014:T057110.20140603
- Date de la décision
- 3 juin 2014
- Numéro de l'affaire
- T 0571/10
- Requête en révision de
- -
- Numéro de la demande
- 08165575.5
- Classe de la CIB
- A61K 9/26A61K 9/20A61K 31/505A61K 9/32A61K 9/16
- 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
- Pharmaceutical compositions comprising a HMG COA reductase inhibitor
- Nom du demandeur
- AstraZeneca AB
- Nom de l'opposant
- -
- Chambre
- 3.3.07
- Sommaire
- -
- Dispositions juridiques pertinentes
- European Patent Convention Art 123(2)European Patent Convention Art 54(3)European Patent Convention Art 56European Patent Convention Art 76(1)European Patent Convention Art 84European Patent Convention Art 88(2)European Patent Convention Art 88(3)European Patent Convention R 43(1)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 13Travaux préparatoires M/48/I, Section C
- Mots-clés
- Late-filed request - justification for late filing (yes)
Divisional application - added subject-matter (no)
Claims - essential features
Amendments - added subject-matter (no)
Priority - "OR"-claims using a generic term or formula
Priority - partial priority (yes)
Novelty - (yes)
Inventive step - (yes) - Exergue
- In a case in which a single priority is claimed for a given application and a number of features of a claim of said application are generalisations of specific features disclosed in the priority document, a partial priority is to be acknowledged, as long as it is possible to conceptually identify, by a comparison of the claimed subject-matter with the disclosure of the priority document, a limited number of clearly defined alternative subject-matters, including among the alternatives the specific embodiments which are directly and unambiguously derivable from the priority document. In order for this condition to be met, it is not necessary that the clearly defined alternative subject-matters are spelt out as such in the application, nor that the word "or" actually occurs (see point 4.5.12).
This condition extends to the case of multiple priorities. In that case, a comparison with the disclosure of each of the priority documents is necessary and for each of the clearly defined alternative subject-matters the earliest priority from which the alternative subject-matter is directly and unambiguously derivable is acknowledged (see point 4.5.13).
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 claims 1 to 12 filed during the oral proceedings before the Board and a description yet to be adapted thereto.