T 0697/22 du 29.07.2025

Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence: ECLI:EP:BA:2025:T069722.20250729
Date de la décision: 29 juilliet 2025
Numéro de l'affaire: T 0697/22
Requête en révision de: -
Numéro de la demande: 07704142.4
Classe de la CIB: A01G 24/00 A01G 24/18
Langue de la procédure: Anglais
Distribution: Publiées au Journal officiel de l'OEB (A)
Téléchargement: Décision en anglais
Versions JO: Aucun lien JO trouvé
Autres décisions pour cet affaire: -
Résumés pour cette décision: Résumé de Article 112(1)(a) EPC
Titre de la demande: HYDROPONICS GROWING MEDIUM
Nom du demandeur: Knauf Insulation
Nom de l'opposant: ROCKWOOL INTERNATIONAL A/S
Chambre: 3.3.02
Sommaire: -
Dispositions juridiques pertinentes: European Patent Convention Art 112(1)(a)European Patent Convention Art 123(2)European Patent Convention Art 54(2)European Patent Convention Art 54(3)European Patent Convention Art 56 European Patent Convention Art 83 European Patent Convention Art 84 European Patent Convention R 42 European Patent Convention R 43 European Patent Convention R 48 European Patent Convention R 71(1)Guidelines_F-IV 4(4)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 012(2)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 013(1)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 013(2)
Mots-clés: Amendments - added subject-matter
Novelty
Inventive step
Sufficiency of disclosure
Late-filed request
Amendment to appeal case
Claims - adaptation of the description
Referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal
Exergue: The following questions are referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal for decision.
1. If the claims of a European patent are amended during opposition proceedings or opposition-appeal proceedings, and the amendment introduces an inconsistency between the amended claims and the description of the patent, is it necessary, to comply with the requirements of the EPC, to adapt the description to the amended claims so as to remove the inconsistency?
2. If the first question is answered in the affirmative, which requirement(s) of the EPC necessitate(s) such an adaptation?
3. Would the answer to questions 1 and 2 be different if the claims of a European patent application are amended during examination proceedings or examination-appeal proceedings, and the amendment introduces an inconsistency between the amended claims and the description of the patent application?
Affaires citées: G 0007/93 G 0003/14 G 0001/24 J 0014/19 T 0011/82 T 0403/88 T 0619/00 T 0430/02 T 0073/04 T 1252/11 T 2378/13 T 0237/16 T 1956/16 T 2641/16 T 1579/17 T 2178/17 T 2498/17 T 2766/17 T 1024/18 T 1168/18 T 1968/18 T 2293/18 T 2391/18 T 3003/18 T 0140/19 T 2194/19 T 2685/19 T 3097/19 T 0121/20 T 0169/20 T 0250/20 T 0454/20 T 1444/20 T 1516/20 T 0056/21 T 0623/21 T 1018/21 T 1426/21 T 1452/21 T 1472/21 T 1614/21 T 1695/21 T 1784/21 T 0438/22 T 0447/22 T 0673/22 T 0736/22 T 1048/22 T 1571/22 T 1745/22 T 0168/24
Affaires citantes: T 0235/25

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

The following questions are referred to the Enlarged Board of

Appeal for decision:

1. If the claims of a European patent are amended during opposition proceedings or opposition-appeal proceedings, and the amendment introduces an inconsistency between the amended claims and the description of the patent, is it necessary, to comply with the requirements of the EPC, to adapt the description to the amended claims so as to remove the inconsistency?

2. If the first question is answered in the affirmative, which requirement(s) of the EPC necessitate(s) such an adaptation?

3. Would the answer to questions 1 and 2 be different if the claims of a European patent application are amended during examination proceedings or examination-appeal proceedings, and the amendment introduces an inconsistency between the amended claims and the description of the patent application?