T 0241/25 du 03.03.2026
- Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence
- ECLI:EP:BA:2026:T024125.20260303
- Date de la décision
- 3 mars 2026
- Numéro de l'affaire
- T 0241/25
- En ligne le
- 13 avril 2026
- Requête en révision de
- -
- Numéro de la demande
- 20194277.8
- Classe de la CIB
- A61M 25/00A61F 2/24A61M 25/10
- 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
- LOW PROFILE DELIVERY SYSTEM FOR TRANSCATHETER HEART VALVE
- Nom du demandeur
- Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
- Nom de l'opposant
- J A Kemp LLP
- Chambre
- 3.2.02
- Sommaire
- -
- Dispositions juridiques pertinentes
- European Patent Convention Art 100(c)European Patent Convention Art 76(1)European Patent Convention Art 83European Patent Convention Art 56Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020 Art 012(4)
- Mots-clés
- Grounds for opposition - subject-matter extends beyond content of earlier application - main request (yes)
Sufficiency of disclosure - (yes)
Inventive step - auxiliary request 1'' (yes)
Amendment to case - amendment within meaning of Art. 12(4) RPBA 2020 - Exergue
- Merely referring to an embodiment of the original disclosure and stating that an unallowable intermediate generalisation of this embodiment has been introduced is not a substantiated objection of added subject-matter. An objection to an intermediate generalisation in a claim requires (i) identifying the features which are impermissibly omitted from the claim and (ii) explaining why the omission introduces added subject-matter. According to established case law of the boards this explanation needs to show that the omitted features are inextricably linked with (some of) the claimed ones according to the original disclosure. Only in this way it is possible to (i) identify the objection and (ii) understand the reasoning supporting the objection.
- Affaires citantes
- -
Order
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The decision under appeal is set aside.
2. The case is remitted to the opposition division with the order to maintain the patent on the basis of:
- claim 1 of auxiliary request 1'', filed with letter
dated 17 December 2024
- the description and the drawings of the patent
specification