T 0169/20 (Pouch with inner container/Reckitt) du 23.01.2023
- Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence
- ECLI:EP:BA:2023:T016920.20230123
- Date de la décision
- 23 janvier 2023
- Numéro de l'affaire
- T 0169/20
- Requête en révision de
- -
- Numéro de la demande
- 13750929.5
- Classe de la CIB
- C11D 17/04
- 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
- Résumé de EPC2000 Art 084
- Titre de la demande
- PACKAGED DETERGENT COMPOSITION
- Nom du demandeur
- Reckitt Benckiser Vanish B.V.
- Nom de l'opposant
- Henkel AG & Co. KGaA
- Chambre
- 3.3.06
- Sommaire
- -
- Dispositions juridiques pertinentes
- EPC2000_Art_069_Protocol_InterpretationEuropean Patent Convention Art 56European Patent Convention Art 69(1)European Patent Convention Art 84European Patent Convention R 42(1)(c)European Patent Convention R 43(1)European Patent Convention R 43(6)
- Mots-clés
- Claimed invention and support by the description - Legal basis for claim interpretation
Inventive step - (no)
Claims - clarity after amendment (no) - Exergue
- 1. The provisions in Article 84 EPC and Rules 42 and 43 EPC provide an adequate legal basis for claim interpretation when assessing patentability. In particular, the requirement that the claims shall be "supported by the description" in Article 84 EPC, 2nd sentence, indicates that the description may be relied upon as an aid or support for understanding the subject-matter of the claims.
2. However, as implicitly derivable from this provision, the support of the description for interpreting the claims should only be resorted to in the exceptional cases where the subject-matter of the invention and/or its technical context needs to be clarified, and may only be applicable when the invention in the description corresponds to the invention as claimed.
3. The support of the description should, in any case, not be used for restricting or modifying the subject-matter of the invention beyond what a person skilled in the art would understand when reading the wording of the claims within the relevant technical context.
Order
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The decision under appeal is set aside.
2. The patent is revoked.