T 2001/12 du 29.01.2015

Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence: ECLI:EP:BA:2015:T200112.20150129
Date de la décision: 29 janvier 2015
Numéro de l'affaire: T 2001/12
Requête en révision de: -
Numéro de la demande: 08764638.6
Classe de la CIB: H01L 29/423 H01L 21/336 H01L 29/788 H01L 29/792 H01L 29/06 H01L 21/28
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: MEMORY DEVICE AND ITS READING METHOD
Nom du demandeur: National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science
and Technology
Nom de l'opposant: -
Chambre: 3.4.03
Sommaire: -
Dispositions juridiques pertinentes: European Patent Convention Art 111(1) 1973 European Patent Convention Art 123(2)European Patent Convention Art 54 1973 European Patent Convention Art 56 1973 European Patent Convention Art 83 1973 European Patent Convention Art 84 1973
Mots-clés: Sufficiency of disclosure - (yes)
Claims - essential features
Claims - relationship between Article 83 and Article 84
Claims - clarity - main request (yes)
Exergue: An objection of insufficient disclosure under Article 83 EPC 1973 cannot legitimately be based on an argument that the application would not enable a skilled person to achieve a non-claimed technical effect (point 3.4).
A doubt that the invention as claimed is capable of solving the problem defined in the application may have the following consequences:
a) If the question arises because the claim fails to specify those features which are disclosed in the application as providing the solution to the problem, then the description and claims are inconsistent in relation to the definition of the invention, and an objection under Article 84 EPC 1973 may properly arise that the claims do not contain all the essential features necessary to specify the invention.
b) If this is not the case, but, having regard to the prior art, and irrespective of what may be asserted in the description, it does not appear credible that the invention as claimed would actually be capable of solving the problem, then an objection under Article 56 EPC 1973 may be raised (point 4.4).
Affaires citées: G 0001/03 T 0032/82 T 0133/85 T 0939/92 T 0260/98 T 0400/98 T 0813/03 T 1079/08
Affaires citantes: T 0862/11 T 0863/12 T 1216/12 T 0206/13 T 0692/13 T 2135/13 T 2338/13 T 0603/14 T 1180/14 T 1291/14 T 1744/14 T 2180/14 T 0012/15 T 0062/15 T 0473/15 T 2135/15 T 2284/15 T 0258/16 T 1137/16 T 1502/16 T 2210/16 T 2530/16 T 1938/17 T 0899/18 T 1780/19 T 2246/19 T 0110/21 T 0476/21 T 1480/21 T 1891/21 T 0103/22 T 2015/23

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 for further prosecution.