T 1473/19 du 30.09.2022
- Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence
- ECLI:EP:BA:2022:T147319.20220930
- Date de la décision
- 30 septembre 2022
- Numéro de l'affaire
- T 1473/19
- Requête en révision de
- -
- Numéro de la demande
- 11749363.5
- Classe de la CIB
- H01F 38/18A61B 6/00H04B 5/00
- 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
- Résumé de EPC2000 Art 069
- Titre de la demande
- CONTACTLESS ROTARY JOINT
- Nom du demandeur
- Schleifring GmbH
- Nom de l'opposant
- Siemens Healthcare GmbH
- Chambre
- 3.2.02
- Sommaire
- -
- Dispositions juridiques pertinentes
- EPC2000_Prot Interpretation Article 69European Patent Convention Art 123(2)European Patent Convention Art 123(3)European Patent Convention Art 69European Patent Convention R 139Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 12(4)
- Mots-clés
- New evidence filed on appeal - admitted (yes)
Amendments - added subject-matter (yes)
Amendments - inescapable trap (yes)
Correction of error - (no) - Exergue
- 1.) Article 69 EPC in conjunction with Article 1 of the Protocol thereto can and should be relied on when interpreting claims and determining the claimed subject-matter in proceedings before the EPO, including for the purpose of assessing compliance with Article 123(2) EPC (Reasons 3.1-3.15).
2.) Although Article 69(1), second sentence, EPC requires that generally account be taken of the description and the drawings when interpreting a claim, the primacy of the claims according to Article 69(1), first sentence, EPC limits the extent to which the meaning of a certain claim feature may be affected by the description and the drawings (Reasons 3.16-3.16.2).
3.) Claim interpretation is overall a question of law which must as such ultimately be answered by the deciding body, and not by linguistic or technical experts. It does, however, involve the appraisal of linguistic and technical facts which may be supported by evidence submitted by the parties (Reasons 3.17). - Affaires citées
- G 0002/88G 0011/91G 0001/10G 0002/10G 0003/14G 0001/16T 0006/01T 0556/02T 0081/03T 1279/04T 0197/10T 1646/12T 1167/13T 1360/13T 1514/14T 0131/15T 2365/15T 0435/16T 0506/16T 1127/16T 0030/17T 1776/18T 2864/18T 2007/19T 3097/19T 0092/21
- Affaires citantes
- G 0001/24T 0073/19T 0517/19T 2833/19T 2968/19T 0169/20T 0367/20T 0450/20T 0694/20T 1382/20T 2030/20T 0056/21T 1074/21T 1208/21T 1266/21T 1293/21T 1335/21T 1366/21T 1422/21T 1628/21T 1632/21T 1749/21T 0111/22T 0177/22T 0438/22T 0439/22T 0865/22T 0953/22T 1246/22T 1248/22T 1886/22T 2080/22T 2320/22T 0564/23T 0591/23T 0873/23T 0947/23T 0981/23T 1232/23T 1345/23T 1455/23T 1846/23T 2001/23T 0197/24
Order
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The decision under appeal is set aside.
2. The patent is revoked.