T 0873/94 (Amended divisional application) du 10.07.1996
- Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence
- ECLI:EP:BA:1996:T087394.19960710
- Date de la décision
- 10 juilliet 1996
- Numéro de l'affaire
- T 0873/94
- Requête en révision de
- -
- Numéro de la demande
- 89116770.2
- Classe de la CIB
- H01L 27/11
- Langue de la procédure
- Anglais
- 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
- Semiconductor device
- Nom du demandeur
- TOSHIBA
- Nom de l'opposant
- -
- Chambre
- 3.4.01
- Sommaire
I. A divisional application has to comply with the requirements of both Article 76(1) EPC and Article 123(2) EPC. Article 76(1) EPC governs the filing of a divisional application and therefore whether it is entitled to the filing date of the parent application and has the same benefit of right to priority as the parent application. Article 123(2) EPC governs amendments to the divisional application subsequent to its filing.
II. Where a proposal for amendment of an application involves the addition of a limiting feature to a claim, application of a "novelty test" is not appropriate to determine whether or not the amendment complies with Article 123(2) EPC, because as explained in Decision G 1/93 (OJ EPO 1994, 541), "Whether or not the adding of an undisclosed feature limiting the scope of protection...would be contrary to the purpose of Article 123(2) EPC...depends on the circumstances".
- Dispositions juridiques pertinentes
- European Patent Convention Art 123(2) 1973European Patent Convention Art 76(1) 1973
- Mots-clés
- Feature added to claim of divisional application
Amended claimed combination within protection claimed in parent and divisional application as filed
Subject-matter extending beyond the content of the earlier and divisional application as filed (no) - Exergue
- -
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The decision under appeal is set aside.
2. Claims 1 to 3 which make up the main request do not contravene the requirements of Articles 76(1) and 123(2) EPC.
3. The case is remitted to the first instance for further examination as to whether the application meets the requirements of the EPC.