T 0312/94 du 04.09.1997

Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence: ECLI:EP:BA:1997:T031294.19970904
Date de la décision: 4 septembre 1997
Numéro de l'affaire: T 0312/94
Requête en révision de: -
Numéro de la demande: 89201777.3
Classe de la CIB: H01L 21/306
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: -
Titre de la demande: Reactive iion etching of a silicon-bearing material with hydrobromic acid
Nom du demandeur: Philips Electronics N.V.
Nom de l'opposant: -
Chambre: 3.4.01
Sommaire: -
Dispositions juridiques pertinentes: European Patent Convention Art 54 1973 European Patent Convention Art 56 1973
Mots-clés: Interpretation of part of a document in the context of the remainder
A combination of zero values in a table not a realistic technical teaching in its context
Novelty (yes)
Inventive step (yes)
Exergue: It is a general legal rule for the interpretation of any document, in particular a patent application or patent, in order to determine its true meaning and thus its content and disclosure, that no part of such a document should be construed in isolation from the remainder of the document: on the contrary, each part of such a document must be construed in the context of the contents of the document as a whole. Thus, even though a part of a document appears to have a particular meaning when interpreted literally and in isolation from the remainder of the document, the true meaning of that part of the document may be different having regard to the remainder of the document.
Affaires citées: -
Affaires citantes: T 0383/95 T 1208/97 T 0566/98 T 0720/98 T 0711/99 T 0123/00 T 0443/00 T 0616/01 T 0994/02 T 0129/04 T 1214/04 T 1321/04 T 0189/05 T 0452/05 T 0546/07 T 2225/09 T 0456/10 T 1117/10 T 1598/10 T 0072/12 T 0535/12 T 1658/12 T 1689/12 T 1290/18 T 0439/22 T 0211/23

ORDER

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The decision of the Examining Division is set aside.

2. The case is remitted to the Examining Division with the order to grant a patent on the basis of claims 1 to 3 filed on 24 March 1994 with a description to be adapted accordingly.