Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/h_iv_4_4_3.htm
Timestamp: 2015-11-27 10:09:34
Document Index: 719540338

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 123', 'Art. 52', 'Art. 57', 'Art. 53', 'Art. 53', 'Art. 53']

H‑IV, 4.4.3 Points to be disregarded - Guidelines for Examination
Chapter IV – Allowability of amendments – Art. 123(2) and (3)
4. Compliance of amendments with other EPC requirements
4.4 In limitation proceedings
4.4.3 Points to be disregarded
In limitation proceedings there is no examination as to why a request for limitation was filed or whether the goal of the limitation has been achieved, for example if the amended and limited claims are truly novel vis-à-vis a particular prior art document.
In general there is no need to verify whether the limited claims contravene any of Art. 52 to Art. 57. It may however happen that limitation results in prima facie non-compliance with the patentability criteria, e.g. Art. 53, in which case the examiner will communicate this non-compliance to the requester.
Examples: A granted claim directed to a generic plant is limited to a specific plant variety, which would be an exception to patentability (Art. 53(b) and G 1/98). A claim granted to a device comprising a controlled explosion system is limited to a claim reciting an anti-personnel mine comprising the controlled explosion system, which would be contrary to Art. 53(a).