T 2043/23 (Resistance-based temperature monitoring/PHILIP MORRIS PRODUCTS) du 12.05.2026
- Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence
- ECLI:EP:BA:2026:T204323.20260512
- Date de la décision
- 12 mai 2026
- Numéro de l'affaire
- T 2043/23
- En ligne le
- 22 juilliet 2026
- Requête en révision de
- -
- Numéro de la demande
- 16711269.7
- Classe de la CIB
- A24F 40/53
- Langue de la procédure
- Anglais
- Distribution
- Non distribuées (D)
- Téléchargement
- Décision en anglais
- Versions JO
- Aucun lien JO trouvé
- Autres décisions pour cet affaire
- -
- Résumés pour cette décision
- -
- Titre de la demande
- HEATER MANAGEMENT
- Nom du demandeur
- Philip Morris Products S.A.
- Nom de l'opposant
- Imperial Tobacco Limited
- Chambre
- 3.5.01
- Sommaire
- -
- Dispositions juridiques pertinentes
- European Patent Convention Art 54European Patent Convention Art 56European Patent Convention Art 100(a)Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 011
- Mots-clés
- Application of G 1/24 - explanatory, non scope-altering, use of the description (yes - in line with G 1/24)
Inventive step - using measured heater's resistance at room temperature for further calculations (no
Inventive step - obvious)
Inventive step - monitoring whether the heater's resistance reaches a threshold value outside of an expected time period (yes
Inventive step - no hint in prior art) - Exergue
- [T]he Board notes that the present case differs from situations such as that in decision T 439/22 (reasons, points 2.4, 3.4 and 6), in which the description and drawings were relied upon to broaden the scope of a claim beyond what was conveyed by the claim wording read in isolation.
Here, by contrast, the description served an explanatory and confirmatory function by assisting the skilled reader in recognising an embodiment already encompassed by the claim wording, without altering the scope of the claim.
This modest explanatory and confirmatory use of the description is consistent with the principles set out in G 1/24 (see T 2027/23 - Turnable ladder/IVECO, reasons, point 3.5.2).
(See points 2.9 and 2.10 of the reasons) - Affaires citantes
- -
Order
For these reasons it is decided that:
The opponent's appeal is dismissed.