T 0371/88 (Transmission apparatus) du 29.05.1990

Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence

ECLI:EP:BA:1990:T037188.19900529

Date de la décision

29 mai 1990

Numéro de l'affaire

T 0371/88

Requête en révision de

Numéro de la demande

80304241.5

Classe de la CIB

F16H 1/38 B60K 5/04 B60K 17/34

Langue de la procédure

Anglais

Distribution

Publiées au Journal officiel de l'OEB (A)

Téléchargement

Décision en anglais

Versions JO

Autres décisions pour cet affaire

Résumés pour cette décision

Titre de la demande

Nom du demandeur

Fuji

Nom de l'opposant

Steyr-Daimler-Puch

Chambre

3.2.01

Sommaire

The amendment of a granted claim to replace a restrictive term, which in its strict literal meaning does not clearly embrace a further embodiment of the description, by a less restrictive term clearly embracing also this embodiment, is permissible under Article 123(3) EPC, if the examination of the extent of protection conferred by the granted claim results in the following conclusions:

(a) The restrictive term in the granted claim is not so clear in its technical meaning in the given context that it could be used to determine the extent of protection without interpretation by reference to the description and the drawings of the patent;

(b) It is quite clear from the description and the drawings of the patent and also from the examination procedure up to grant that the further embodiment belongs to the invention and that it was never intended to exclude it from protection conferred by the

Dispositions juridiques pertinentes

European Patent Convention Art 123(3) 1973 European Patent Convention Art 56 1973 European Patent Convention Art 69 1973

Mots-clés

Extension of the protection by broadening a restrictive term in a claim during opposition proceedings
Inventive step (yes)

Exergue

Affaires citées

Affaires citantes

T 0673/89 T 0738/95 T 0259/96 T 1011/96 T 0438/98 T 0494/98 T 0140/99 T 0301/00 T 0750/02 T 0749/03 T 0139/05 T 1433/05 T 0837/07 T 0824/08 T 1172/08 T 1147/11 T 1578/13 T 1127/16 T 1946/16 T 2451/22

ORDER

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The impugned decision is set aside.

2. The case is remitted to the first instance with the order to maintain the patent on the basis of Claim 1 according to the main request as presented at the oral proceedings, Claim 2 and description as amended during the opposition proceedings and further corrected on page 1a according to point 7 of the Decision, together with the drawings as granted.