T 2027/23 (Turnable ladder/IVECO) du 30.06.2025
- Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence
- ECLI:EP:BA:2025:T202723.20250630
- Date de la décision
- 30 juin 2025
- Numéro de l'affaire
- T 2027/23
- Requête en révision de
- -
- Numéro de la demande
- 14173886.4
- Classe de la CIB
- E06C 5/04G05G 9/047A62C 27/00E06C 5/32
- 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 Article 069 EPC
- Titre de la demande
- Control system and method for controlling the movement of an aerial apparatus
- Nom du demandeur
- IVECO MAGIRUS AG
- Nom de l'opposant
- Rosenbauer International AG
- Chambre
- 3.5.05
- Sommaire
- -
- Dispositions juridiques pertinentes
- European Patent Convention Art 100(a)European Patent Convention Art 112(1)(a)European Patent Convention Art 113(1)European Patent Convention Art 125European Patent Convention Art 54European Patent Convention R 103(1)(a)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 12(6)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 13(2)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 21
- Mots-clés
- Claim construction - description and drawings "consulted" and "referred to" for defining the skilled reader of a claim: narrow claim interpretation not accepted
Errors in the opposition division's fact-finding process - (no)
Public prior use as valid state of the art - (yes): public availability sufficiently proven
Novelty - main request and 3rd to 6th auxiliary requests (no)
Admittance of non-admitted claim requests - 1st and 2nd auxiliary requests (no): no error in the use of discretion + no prima facie allowability
Admittance of claim requests filed after Art. 15(1) RPBA communication - 7th and 8th auxiliary requests (no): no "exceptional circumstances" - Exergue
- A claim should not be interpreted, based on features set out in embodiments of an invention, as having a meaning narrower than the wording of the claim as understood by the person skilled in the art. In cases of discrepancy between the claim language and the description, it falls upon the patentee to remedy this incongruence by amending the claim. It is not the task of the Boards of Appeal to reach such alignment by way of interpretative somersaults (see points 3.5.6 and 3.5.8 of the Reasons).
Order
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The request for a referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal is refused.
2. The appeal is dismissed.