T 0437/14 du 17.10.2016

Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence: ECLI:EP:BA:2016:T043714.20161017
Date de la décision: 17 octobre 2016
Numéro de l'affaire: T 0437/14
Requête en révision de: -
Numéro de la demande: 08003327.7
Classe de la CIB: H05B 33/14 C09K 11/06 H01L 51/30
Langue de la procédure: Anglais
Distribution: Publiées au Journal officiel de l'OEB (A)
Téléchargement: Décision en anglais
Versions JO: Allemand
Anglais
Français
Autres décisions pour cet affaire: T 0437/14 2019-03-12
Résumés pour cette décision: -
Titre de la demande: Complexes of form L2IrX
Nom du demandeur: The Trustees of Princeton University
The University of Southern California
Nom de l'opposant: Merck Patent GmbH
Sumitomo Chemical Company Ltd.
BASF SE
Chambre: 3.3.09
Sommaire: -
Dispositions juridiques pertinentes: European Patent Convention Art 100(c)European Patent Convention Art 123(2)European Patent Convention Art 54 European Patent Convention Art 56 European Patent Convention Art 83 European Patent Convention Art 87(1)
Mots-clés: Grounds for opposition - subject-matter extends beyond content of earlier application
Amendments - undisclosed disclaimer
Fundamental question of law
Divergence in case law
Sufficiency of disclosure
Novelty over transient rather than intermediate product in prior art (point 5.4 of the reasons)
Inventive step
Validity of priority claim
Exergue: The following questions are referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal for decision:
1. Is the standard referred to in G 2/10 for the allowability of disclosed disclaimers under Article 123(2) EPC, i.e. whether the skilled person would, using common general knowledge, regard the subject-matter remaining in the claim after the introduction of the disclaimer as explicitly or implicitly, but directly and unambiguously, disclosed in the application as filed, also to be applied to claims containing undisclosed disclaimers?
2. If the answer to the first question is yes, is G 1/03 set aside as regards the exceptions relating to undisclosed disclaimers defined in its answer 2.1?
3. If the answer to the second question is no, i.e. if the exceptions relating to undisclosed disclaimers defined in answer 2.1 of G 1/03 apply in addition to the standard referred to in G 2/10, may this standard be modified in view of these exceptions?
Affaires citées: G 0003/89 G 0011/91 G 0001/93 G 0002/98 G 0001/03 G 0002/10 T 0327/92 T 0392/06 T 1107/06 T 1870/08 T 2018/08 T 0593/09 T 0748/09 T 1176/09 T 2464/10 T 0074/11 T 0544/12 T 0719/12 T 0323/13 T 1872/14
Affaires citantes: T 0351/12 T 0632/12 T 0437/14 T 2012/14 T 0474/17

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

The following questions are referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal for decision:

1. Is the standard referred to in G 2/10 for the allowability of disclosed disclaimers under Article 123(2) EPC, i.e. whether the skilled person would, using common general knowledge, regard the subject-matter remaining in the claim after the introduction of the disclaimer as explicitly or implicitly, but directly and unambiguously, disclosed in the application as filed, also to be applied to claims containing undisclosed disclaimers?

2. If the answer to the first question is yes, is G 1/03 set aside as regards the exceptions relating to undisclosed disclaimers defined in its answer 2.1?

3. If the answer to the second question is no, i.e. if the exceptions relating to undisclosed disclaimers defined in answer 2.1 of G 1/03 apply in addition to the gold standard, may this standard be modified in view of these exceptions?