European Patent Office

T 1149/97 (Fluid transducer/SOLARTRON) du 07.05.1999

Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence
ECLI:EP:BA:1999:T114997.19990507
Date de la décision
7 mai 1999
Numéro de l'affaire
T 1149/97
Requête en révision de
-
Numéro de la demande
88301957.2
Classe de la CIB
G01N 11/16G01N 9/00
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
Fluid transducer
Nom du demandeur
Solartron Group Limited
Nom de l'opposant
Endress + Hauser GmbH + Co.
Chambre
3.4.02
Sommaire

1. Without opposition, issue of a decision to grant a European patent normally constitutes a "cut-off" point for making amendments to the application documents in the European proceedings. If an opposition has been filed, "cut-off" effects due to the grant of a patent may be seen in the restrictions imposed on further amendments to the patent specification by Rules 57a and 87 and Article 123(3) EPC.

2. Although Article 123(3) EPC only addresses the claims of the European patent, amendments to the description and the drawings may also extend the protection conferred in accordance with Article 69(1) EPC.

3. If, in view of Articles 84 and 69 EPC, the application documents have been adapted to amended claims before grant, thereby deleting part of the subject-matter originally disclosed in order to avoid inconsistencies in the patent specification, as a rule subject-matter deleted for this reason can neither be reinserted into the patent specification nor into the claims as granted without infringing Article 123(3) EPC. An analogous finding applies to subject-matter retained in the patent specification during such adaptation for reasons of comprehensibility, but indicated as not relating to the claimed invention (see point 6. of the reasons).

Mots-clés
Novelty - main request and auxiliary requests 2 & 3 (no)
Exergue
-

ORDER

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The decision under appeal is set aside.

2. The case is remitted to the first instance with the order to maintain the patent with the following claims, and description and drawings to be adapted:

Claims 1 to 8 according to the sixth auxiliary request submitted during the oral proceedings.