1. Article 123(2) CBE – extension de l'objet de la demande
  1. Home
  2. Textes juridiques
  3. La Jurisprudence des Chambers de recours de l'OEB
  4. La Jurisprudence des Chambres de recours de l'Office européen des brevets
  5. II. Demande de brevet et modifications
  6. E. Modifications
  7. 1. Article 123(2) CBE
  8. 1.2. Le contenu de la demande telle que déposée : parties d'une demande déterminantes pour la divulgation de l'invention
Imprimer
Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email

1.2. Le contenu de la demande telle que déposée : parties d'une demande déterminantes pour la divulgation de l'invention

Vue d'ensemble

1.2. Le contenu de la demande telle que déposée : parties d'une demande déterminantes pour la divulgation de l'invention

1.2.1 Description, revendications et dessins
1.2.2 Abrégés, titres, documents de priorité, demandes parallèles
1.2.3 Questions de langues
1.2.4 Renvois à d'autres documents – incorporation par référence
Nouvelles décisions
T 1424/23

In T 1424/23 the board explained that when assessing compliance with Art. 123(2) EPC, it has to be established whether the application has been amended in such a way that it contains subject-matter which extends beyond the content of the application as filed. Citing G 3/89, the board recalled that the content of the application as filed consists of the description, claims and drawings as filed, i.e. on the filing date. In the case in hand, the application as filed had been published during the international phase.

However, the decision under appeal discussed the amendments made to claim 1 compared to the amended claim 1 filed on entry into the European phase. The board observed that the claims filed on entry into the European phase did not correspond to those of the application as filed. It therefore established that the claims filed on entry into the European phase did not provide a basis for assessing compliance with Art. 123(2) EPC.

As it appeared that the examining division had incorrectly relied on the claims filed on entry into the European phase for its Art. 123(2) EPC assessment, the board concluded that a proper Art. 123(2) EPC assessment might not have been carried out. Consequently, it remitted the case to the examining division for further prosecution.

Précédent
Suivant
Footer - Service & support
  • Soutien
    • Mises à jour du site Internet
    • Disponibilité de services en ligne
    • FAQ
    • Publications
    • Notifications relatives aux procédures
    • Contact
    • Centre d'abonnement
    • Jours fériés
    • Glossaire
Footer - More links
  • Centre de presse
  • Emploi et carrière
  • Single Access Portal
  • Achats
  • Chambres de recours
Facebook
European Patent Office
EPO Jobs
Instagram
EuropeanPatentOffice
Linkedin
European Patent Office
EPO Jobs
EPO Procurement
X (formerly Twitter)
EPOorg
EPOjobs
Youtube
TheEPO
Footer
  • Adresse bibliographique
  • Conditions d’utilisation
  • Protection des données
  • Accessibilité