T 0382/94 (Documents as filed) du 17.04.1997
- Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence
- ECLI:EP:BA:1997:T038294.19970417
- Date de la décision
- 17 avril 1997
- Numéro de l'affaire
- T 0382/94
- En ligne le
- 13 juin 1997
- Requête en révision de
- -
- Numéro de la demande
- 87104961.5
- Classe de la CIB
- G02B 27/46G02B 21/06G02B 21/00
- Langue de la procédure
- Allemand
- Distribution
- Publiées au Journal officiel de l'OEB (A)
- Téléchargement
- Décision en anglais
- Autres décisions pour cet affaire
- -
- Résumés pour cette décision
- -
- Titre de la demande
- Strahlungsmodulierendes Mikroskop mit Rückfaltung
- Nom du demandeur
- Firma Carl Zeiss, et al
- Nom de l'opposant
- -
- Chambre
- 3.4.02
- Sommaire
1. The Convention does not make the accordance of the date of filing dependent on whether text matter in the drawings is in the same language as that of the description and claims in accordance with Article 14(1) and (2) EPC.
2. If the drawings are filed in full on the date of filing, they form part of the application as filed, even if they contain text matter in an official language other than the language of the proceedings. There is nothing to prevent the application being amended on the basis of a translation of this text matter into the language of the proceedings.
- Dispositions juridiques pertinentes
- European Patent Convention Art 14 1973European Patent Convention Art 70 1973European Patent Convention Art 80 1973European Patent Convention Art 90 1973European Patent Convention Art 91 1973European Patent Convention Art 123(2) 1973European Patent Convention R 32(2)(j) 1973European Patent Convention R 39 1973European Patent Convention R 43 1973European Patent Convention R 67 1973European Patent Convention R 88 1973
- Mots-clés
- Accordance of date of filing
Documents as filed
Languages of the EPO
Text matter in the drawings
Authentic text of a European patent application - Exergue
- -
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The contested decision is set aside.
2. The case is remitted to the examining division for further prosecution.
3. The request for reimbursement of the appeal fee is rejected.