European Patent Office

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
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).

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The decision under appeal is set aside.

2. The patent is revoked.