Key points
- The Board: "The Board considers that the changes in claims 1 and 3 were only typographical or editorial changes that do not result in any amendment of the subject-matter claimed. They have no incidence on the subject-matter claimed and do not introduce any unclarity, as argued by the appellant. Consequently, the main request is admitted into the appeal proceedings (Article 13(2) 2020 and Rule 80 EPC)."
- The claim amendments at issue were:
- Hence, in claim 1 the feature "in a ratio of 2 : 1" was modified by the suppression of the empty spaces to "in a ratio of 2:1".
- In claim 3, the feature "a butyl methacrylate-2-dimethylaminoethyl)methacrylate-methylmethacrylate copolymer (1:2:1)" was modified by the addition of a bracket (shown in bold and underlined) to "a butyl methacrylate-2-(dimethylaminoethyl)methacrylate-methyl-methacrylate copolymer (1:2:1)" (modification shown in bold and underlined).
- The present decision seems to provide a new approach to the prohibition of "tidying up" the claims under Rule 80 EPC.
EPO T 1131/18 -
The link to the decision is provided after the jump, as well as (an extract of) the text of the decision.
source http://justpatentlaw.blogspot.com/2022/03/t-113118-clerical-errors-and-rule-80.html
