Art22eTPEPC1973

Métadonnées

• Nom affiché : Art22eTPEPC1973
• Numéro d'article : 22
• Dossier / langue : English
• Tag langue : #English
• PDF original : /Articles/English/Articles 001-025/Article 022 (English version)/Art22eTPEPC1973.pdf

Comment:

The collection represents purely an internal research tool for the purpose of Directorate Patent Law of the European Patent Office. No guarantee can be given for its completeness or correctness. The documents produced before 1969 cannot be provided in English as this was not an official language in the period before that date. These documents therefore are provided in French and German.

Page 2

Art. 22 MPO Große Beschwerdekammer

Entwurf, der dem nebenstehenden Dokument zugrunde liegt	Art. Nr. im Entwurf/ Dokument	Dokument, in dem der Art. behandelt wird	Fundstelle im Dokument
	(58a)58	BR/10/69	Rdn. 17/18
BR/9/69	58a	BR/26/70	Rdn. 23/24
BR/139/71	57	BR/168/72	Rdn. 74-76
BR/139/71	57	BR/169/72	Rdn. 49
VE 1971 (Ue)	57	BR/132/71	Rdn. 38/39

Dokumente der MDK

E 1972	20	M/146/R 1	Art. 22

• Document 58a not found.

Page 3

MUNICH DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE FOR THE SETTING UP OF A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

- 1973 -

Munich, 30 September 1973 M/ 146/R 1 Original: English/French/German

CONFERENCE DOCUMENT

Drawn up by: General Drafting Committee

Subject: Convention: Articles 1 to 26

Page 4

b) drei technisch vorgebildeten Mitgliedern und zwei rechtskundigen Mitgliedern, wenn die Prüfungsabteilung, gegen deren Entscheidung sich die Beschwerde richtet, aus vier Mitgliedern bestand, oder wenn die Beschwerdekammer der Meinung ist, daß es die Art der Entscheidung erfordert; c) drei rechtskundigen Mitgliedern in allen anderen Fällen. (4) Bei Beschwerden gegen eine Entscheidung der Einspruchsabteilung setzen sich die Beschwerdekammern zusammen aus: a) zwei technisch vorgebildeten Mitgliedern und einem rechtskundigen Mitglied mit Unterstützung eines technisch vorgebildeten Mitglieds als Berichterstatter, das nicht an der Entscheidung teilnimmt, bei Beschwerden gegen eine von einer aus drei Mitgliedern bestehenden Einspruchsabteilung gefaßten Entscheidung; b) drei technisch vorgebildeten Mitgliedern und zwei rechtskundigen Mitgliedern, wenn die Einspruchsabteilung, gegen deren Entscheidung sich die Beschwerde richtet, aus vier Mitgliedern bestand, oder wenn die Beschwerdekammer der Meinung ist, daß es die Art der Beschwerde erfordert.

Vgl. Regeln 10 (Geschäftsverteilung für die zweite Instans und Bestimmung ihrer Mitglieder) und 11 (Verfahrensordnungen für die zweite Instans)

Artikel 20

Große Beschwerdekammer (1) Die Große Beschwerdekammer ist zuständig für: a) Entscheidungen über Rechtsfragen, die ihr von den Beschwerdekammern vorgelegt werden; b) die Abgabe von Stellungnahmen zu Rechtsfragen, die ihr vom Präsidenten des Europäischen Patentamts nach Artikel 111 vorgelegt werden. (2) Die Große Beschwerdekammer beschließt in der Besetzung von fünf rechtskundigen Mitgliedern und zwei technisch vorgebildeten Mitgliedern. Ein rechtskundiges Mitglied führt den Vorsitz.

Vgl. Regeln 10 (Geschäftsverteilung für die zweite Instans und Bestimmung ihrer Mitglieder) und 11 (Verfahrensordnungen für die zweite Instans)

Artikel 21

Unabhängigkeit der Mitglieder der Kammern (1) Die Mitglieder der Großen Beschwerdekammer und der Beschwerdekammern werden für einen Zeitraum von fünf Jahren ernannt und können während dieses Zeitraums ihrer Funktion nicht enthoben werden. (2) Die Mitglieder der Kammern dürfen nicht der Eingangsstelle, den Prüfungsabteilungen oder den Einspruchsabteilungen angehören. (b) three technically qualified members and two legally qualified members, when the Examining Division against whose decision the appeal is made consisted of four members, or when the Board of Appeal considers that the nature of the decision so requires; (c) three legally qualified members in all other cases. (4) For appeals from a decision of an Opposition Division, a Board of Appeal shall consist of: (a) two technically qualified members and one legally qualified member, assisted by a technically qualified member who shall act as rapporteur but shall not take part in the decision, when the appeal is from a decision of an Opposition Division consisting of three members; (b) three technically qualified members and two legally qualified members, when the Opposition Division against whose decision the appeal is made consisted of four members, or when the Board of Appeal considers that the nature of the appeal so requires.

Cf. Rules 10 (Allocation of duties to the departments of the second instance and designation of their members) and 11 (Rules of Procedure of the departments of the second instance)

Article 20

Enlarged Board of Appeal (1) The Enlarged Board of Appeal shall be responsible for: (a) deciding points of law referred to it by Boards of Appeal and (b) giving opinions on points of law referred to it by the President of the European Patent Office under the conditions laid down in Article 111. (2) For giving decisions or opinions, the Enlarged Board of Appeal shall consist of five legally qualified members and two technically qualified members. One of the legally qualified members shall be the Chairman.

Cf. Rules 10 (Allocation of duties to the departments of the second instance and designation of their members) and 11 (Rules of Procedure of the departments of the second instance)

Article 21

Independence of the members of the Boards (1) The members of the Enlarged Board of Appeal and of the Boards of Appeal shall be appointed for a term of five years and may not be removed from office during this term. (2) The members of the Boards may not be members of the Receiving Section, Examining Divisions, or Opposition Divisions.

PROJET DE CONVENTION

INSTITUANT UN SYSTÈME EUROPÉEN DE DÉLIVRANCE DE BREVETS

Page 6

Article 116 - Decision or opinion of the Inlcrred Board of Appeal on certain points of lay 45. With regard to paragraph 1(b), the Working Party agreed by a majority that the Presiáent of the Eucucau Patent Office may only call upon the Enlarged Board of Appeal when two Boards of Appeal have given difiżent decisions on the same question; the more widely drafted first sub-section of this sub-paragraph was therefore deleted. The Netherlands delegation voted against this deletion, as it considered the wider wording more suitable.

Re. Article 135 IR - Membership of the Boards of Appeal 46. The French delegsition proposed that those members of the Board of Appeal who had a previous interest in the matter should not participate, altiougth they would be permitted to make statements. The Workiut, it, 7 cusiaed tiat it was not desirable to extend the grousis for sizclusion of members of the Boards and this proposal was not accepted. 47. The question was raised as to whether a member of a Board of Appeal who considered that he came under one of the grounds for exclusion given in Article 135, paragraph 1, could nevertheless take part, subject to the agreement of the parties. The retention of such a member might in fact prove quite useful in view of his special knowledge of a case in point.

Page 7

Article 56 - Boards of Appeal 36. A proposal by the French delegation, according to which the Boards of Appeal should always be presided over by one of their legally qualified members, was not supported by the Working Party. Several delegations could see no reason, particularly in the light of experience in their own countries, why technically qualified examiners should be automatically exluded from this office. 37. The Working Party also agreed that the Chairmen of the Boards of Appeal should be appointed by the Administrative Council (see above, Article 37, point 26).

Article 57 - Enlarged Board of Appeal 38. The Working Party added to paragraph 1 (b) a reference to Article 116 (see point 45 below). 39. On the proposal of the French delegation it was laid down in paragraph 2 that the Chairman of the Enlarged Board of Appeal will always be a legally qualified member.

Page 8

INTER-GOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE FOR THE SETTING UP OF A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

- Secretariat -

Brussels, 28th October 1971 BR/132/71

MINUTES

of the meeting of Working Party I, held in Luxembourg from 14 to 17 September 1971

Opening of the meeting and adoption of the agenda

1. The Working Party held its 8th meeting in Luxembourg from Tuesday 14 to Friday 17 September 1971, with Dr HAERTEL, President of the German Patent Office, in the Chair.

This meeting, which was devoted primarily to the examination of certain legal problems connected with the provisions being drawn up, was also attended by legal experts from the countries of the delegations to Working Party I.

Representatives from the Commission of the European Communities, WIPO and the IIB were also present at the meeting (1). The representative of the General Secretariat of the Council of Europe sent his apologies for being unable to attend.

The Working Party adopted the provisional agenda (2).

(1) See Annex I for list of those attending.

(2) See Annex II for the provisional agenda (BR/GT I/109/71) and the list of the provisions of the Second Preliminary Draft Convention and the First Preliminary Draft Implementing Regulations to be examined at the meeting (BR/GT I/111/71).

BR/132 e/71 ley/KM/ad

Page 9

b) die Teilung einer europäischen Patentanmeldung, c) die Erteilung eines europäischen Patents, sowie bei Beschwerden gegen eine von einer aus drei Mitgliedern bestehenden Einspruchsabteilung gefaBten Entscheidung;

- aus drei rechtskundigen Mitgliedern in allen anderen Fällen.

Artikel 57

Große Beschwerdekammer (1) Die Große Beschwerdekammer ist zuständig: a) für die Entscheidungen über Rechtsfragen, die ihr von den Beschwerdekammern vorgelegt werden; b) für die Abgabe von Stellungnahmen zu Rechtsfragen, die ihr vom Präsidenten des Europäischen Patentamts vorgelegt werden. (2) Die Große Beschwerdekammer setzt sich aus sieben Mitgliedern zusammen, von denen fünf rechtskundige Mitglieder und zwei technisch vorgebildete Mitglieder sind.

Artikel 58

Unabhängigkeit der Mitglieder der Kammern (1) Die Mitglieder der Großen Beschwerdekammer und der Beschwerdekammern werden für einen Zeitraum von fünf Jahren ernannt und können während dieses Zeitraums ihrer Funktion nicht enthoben werden. (2) Die Mitglieder der Kammern dürfen weder den Prüfungsstellen noch den Prüfungsabteilungen noch den Einspruchsabteilungen angehören. (3) Die Mitglieder der Kammern sind für ihre Entscheidungen an Weisungen nicht gebunden. Sie sind nur den Vorschriften dieses Übereinkommens und den zu seiner Ausführung erlassenen Vorschriften unterworfen.

Europäisches Patentregister

(1) Das Europäische Patentamt führt ein Patentregister mit der Bezeichnung „europäisches Patentregister", in dem alle Angaben vermerkt werden, deren Eintragung in diesem Übereinkommen vorgeschrieben ist. Vor der Veröffentlichung der Patentanmeldung gemäß Artikel 85 erfolgt keine Eintragung in das Patentregister. (2) Jedermann kann in das europäische Patentregister Einsicht nehmen. Auf Antrag werden Auszüge aus dem europäischen Patentregister nach Entrichtung der in der Gebührenordnung zu diesem Übereinkommen vorgeschriebenen Gebühr erteilt. (b) the division of such an application, (c) the grant of a European patent, and in the event of an appeal against a decision taken by an Opposition Division consisting of three members;

- three legally qualified members in all other cases.

Article 57

Enlarged Board of Appeal (1) The Enlarged Board of Appeal shall be responsible for: (a) deciding points of law referred to it by Boards of Appeal and (b) giving opinions on points of law referred to it by the President of the European Patent Office. (2) The Enlarged Board of Appeal shall consist of seven members of whom five shall be legally qualified members and two technically qualified members.

Article 58

Independence of the members of the Boards (1) The members of the Enlarged Board of Appeal and of the Boards of Appeal shall be appointed for a term of five years and may not be removed from office during this term. (2) The members of the Boards may not be members of the Examining Sections, Examining Divisions, or Opposition Divisions. (3) In their decisions the members of the Boards shall not be bound by any instructions. They shall comply only with the provisions of this Convention and with those adopted in implementation thereof.

Register of European Patents

(1) The European Patent Office shall keep a register, to be known as the "Register of European Patents", which shall contain those particulars the registration of which is provided for by this Convention. No entry shall be made in the register prior to the date of publication under Article 85. (2) The Register of European Patents shall be open to public inspection. Extracts from its entries shall be delivered on request on payment of the fee prescribed by the Rules relating to Fees adopted pursuant to this Convention.

Page 10

REGIERUNGSKONFERENZ ÜBER DIE EINFÜHRUNG EINES EUROPÄISCHEN PATENTERTEILUNGSVERFAHREN INTER-GOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE FOR THE SETTING UP OF A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS CONFERENCE INTERGOUVERNEMENTALE POUR L'INSTITUTION D'UN SYSTEME EUROPEEN DE DELIVRANCE DE BREVETS

ZWEITER VORENTWURF EINES ÜBEREINKOMMENS ÜBER EIN EUROPÄISCHES PATENTERTEILUNGSVERFAHREN

sowie ERSTER VORENTWURF EINER AUSFÜHRUNGSORDNUNG ZUM ÜBEREINKOMMEN ÜBER EIN EUROPÄISCHES PATENTERTEILUNGSVERFAHREN und ERSTER VORENTWURF EINER GEBÜHRENORDNUNG

SECOND PRELIMINARY DRAFT OF A CONVENTION ESTABLISHING A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

with FIRST PRELIMINARY DRAFT OF THE IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS TO THE CONVENTION ESTABLISHING A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS and FIRST PRELIMINARY DRAFT OF THE RULES RELATING TO FEES

SECOND AVANT-PROJET DE CONVENTION INSTITUANT UN SYSTÈME EUROPÉEN DE DÉLIVRANCE DE BREVETS ainsi que PREMIER AVANT-PROJET DE RÈGLEMENT D'EXÉCUTION DE LA CONVENTION INSTITUANT UN SYSTÈME EUROPÉEN DE DÉLIVRANCE DE BREVETS et PREMIER AVANT-PROJET DE RÈGLEMENT RELATIF AUX TAXES

Page 11

118. In addition, the same organisations asked that the parties should have the opportunity to be heard by the Enlarged Board or to intervene before it, regardless of whether it was they or the Board of Appeal that referred the point in question to the Enlarged Board of Appeal. 119. IAPIP hoped that the parties would be able to intervene before the Enlarged Board of Appeal, and pointed out that its preference was for a supranational court, such as the maximum approach would indicate. IAPIP expressed anxieties regarding the consequences that referral to the Enlarged Board by the parties could have on the duration of the proceedings. 120. FICPI suggested that in the event of a referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal by the President of the European Patent Office, the interested professional circles might be heard. 121. At the end of the hearing UNICE submitted a drafting proposal (Working Document No. 7 of 27 January 1972).

Article 122 (International search report) and Article 160a (Application of Article 122) 122. IAPIP pointed out that the PCT did not oblige national authorities to recognise the PCT international search report. For the purposes of the PCT, the First Convention constituted a regional treaty which would have the same status in its Contracting States as their national laws. Working on this assumption, the deletion of Article 122 as such, or at least an amendment to the wording to make such recognition optional rather than compulsory ("may take the place of" instead of "shall take the place of"), could be envisaged.

Page 12

Article 116 (Decision or opinion of the Enlarged Board of Appeal on certain points of law) 117. Several organisations (ICC, CEIF, COPRICE, EIRMA, FICPI, UNEPA and UNICE) asked for a provision that the parties, as well as the Board of Appeal, may refer questions to the Enlarged Board of Appeal, without this necessitating the lodging of a further appeal. They considered that if the opportunity to refer points to the Enlarged Board of Appeal for an interlocutory decision, as provided in paragraph 1(a), were to be restricted to the board of Appeal, the desired aim, which was to ensure the uniform application of the law or to clarify a fundamentally important point of law, would not be fully achieved.

Firstly, the Boards of Appeal would not necessarily always realise when they were up against a fundamentally important point of law, and secondly, failure to refer points to the Enlarged Board would not be subject to sanctions.

So as to avoid abuses, the Enlarged Board would have the discretionary power to accept or refuse referral. It would not have to state the grounds for its decision, which would have to be given within quite a short space of time, such as two or three months. If no decision were given within that period, the referral would be deemed to have been refused.

The Board of Appeal concerned would have to stay its decision and would be bound by the interlocutory decision of the Enlarged Board.

Page 13

five members - three technically qualified members and two legally qualified members.

CNIPA asked in what form the Board of Appeal would take the decision, in the case provided for in paragraph 2, first sub-section, (b).

UNEPA wondered about the scope of the provision laid down in paragraph 2, second sub-section, (c). It was noted that in certain cases it would be possible for the proprietor of the patent to introduce an appeal because the form in which the patent was granted had not received his approval.

Article 57 (Enlarged Board of Appeal) 49. See observations under Article 116.

Article 58 (Independence of the members of the Boards) 50. CEIF noted that the members of the Enlarged Board of Appeal and the Boards of Appeal could, in so far as they were not engaged full time as such, be given other duties within the European Patent Office, subject to the provisions of paragraph 2. In this connection it could be specified that the irremovability from office laid down in paragraph 1 only concerned their duties on the Boards.

Article 59 (Register of European Patents) 51. CEIF asked that an amendment be made to the second sentence of paragraph 1 to permit the transfer of an application to be recorded, even if the application had not yet been published.

Page 14

INTER-GOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE FOR THE SETTING UP OF A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

Brussels, 15 March 1972 BR/169/72

- Secretariat -

MINUTES of the

- 5th Meeting of the Inter-Governmental Conference for the Setting up of a European System for the Grant of Patents

Part II

Hearing of the non-governmental international organisations on the Second Preliminary Draft of a Convention establishing a European System for the Grant of Patents

(Luxembourg, 26 January to 1 February 1972)

BR/169 e/72 ley/KM/prk

Page 15

delegations considered that the parties should only have the right to ask a Board of Appeal to refer the matter to the Enlarged Board of Appeal; the Boards of Appeal would, however, be free either to accept or to reject that request.

With regard to the possibility of parties being heard before the Enlarged Board of Appeal, two delegations were in favour, one stating that in its opinion Article 140 already allowed for this possibility. On the other hand, another delegation thought that it was inappropriate to follow up this request, but that the possibility of submitting a written statement could be provided for.

The request of one organisation to lay down that the interested circles could be consulted in the case provided for in paragraph 1(b) was rejected.

The Conference instructed Working Party I to examine the wishes expressed by the interested circles (Working Document No. 7 of 27 January 1972), in the light of the Conference's discussions. 137. Some delegations asked that sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph 1 be deleted since in their opinion it was of no help to ask the Enlarged Board of Appeal to give decisions outside proceedings on a case.

The Conference did not adopt this proposal.

Page 16

Appeal. In this respect, some delegations confessed their perplexity as to the consequences which could arise from the texts in their present form. In fact, these delegations wondered, with regard to paragraph 2, what would happen if either all or part of the patent application or patent was not affected by the decision in respect of the appeal. For such cases these delegations thought it would be useful to lay down the same rights as those provided for in paragraph 3.

The Conference agreed that this problem should be examined again by Working Party I. 135. Reservations were made concerning paragraph 4 by the Swedish and United Kingdom delegations, the latter being opposed to the possibility, implicit in that paragraph, that an authority which has to settle an inter partes dispute should be bound by an ex parte decision.

Article 116 (Decision or opinion of the Enlarged Board of appeal on certain points of law) 136. The Conference discussed the comments submitted by the organisations concerned, relating to the right of the parties to refer any question to the Enlarged Board of ippeal and to be heard before it.

With regard to the parties' right of reference, one delegation said it was in favour of such a possibility, while limiting it nevertheless to points of law of fundamental importance and on the understanding that the Enlarged Board of appeal would have the power to accept or refuse the question referred. On the other hand, several

Page 17

the cases provided for in the first two sub-paragraphs of paragraph 2 (cf. BR/169/72, point 48).

It was, moreover, the view of the Conference that the question of determining under what circumstances as regards composition the Board of Appeal might find that the nature of the decision in question required a composition of three technically qualified members and two legally qualified members (paragraph 2, second sub-paragraph, (b)), could be resolved by the Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal referred to in Re. Article 56, No. 1. 73. The Conference provisionally reserved its position on paragraph 2, second sub-paragraph, (c) pending a review of Article 97 to be undertaken by Working Party I (cf. point 123 below).

Article 57 (Enlarged Board of Appeal) 74. Cf. comments on Article 116. 75. The Luxembourg delegation continued to express reservations on paragraph 1(b). 76. The Conference instructed the Drafting Committee to review the drafting of Re. Article 53, No. 2a, in relation to the text of Article 37, paragraph 3, so as to avoid the possibility of the whole body of provisions concerning the composition of the Enlarged Board of Appeal being interpreted as meaning that the legally qualified members were permanent members while the technically qualified members held their membership on a purely temporary basis.

Page 18

INTER-GOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE FOR THE SETTING UP OF A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

Brussels, 15 March 1972 BR / 168 / 72

- Secretariat -

M I N U T E S

of the 5th Meeting of the Inter-Governmental Conference for the Setting up of a European System for the Grant of Patents

Parts 1 and 3

(Luxembourg, 24-25 January and 2-4 February 1972)

Page 19

Article 57

Enlarged Board of Appeal

(1) The Enlarged Board of Appeal shall be responsible for:

(a) deciding points of law referred to it by Boards of Appeal and

(b) giving opinions on points of law referred to it by the President of the European Patent Office, under the conditions laid down in Article 116.

(2) For giving decisions or opinions, the Enlarged Board of Appeal shall consist of seven members:

- five legally qualified members, one of whom shall be the Chairman;

- two technically qualified members.

BR/139 e/71 prk

Page 20

INTER-GOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE FOR THE SETTING UP OF A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

Brussels, 6 December 1971 BR/139/71

- Secretariat -

DOCUMENT CORRECTING

SECOND PRELIMINARY DRAFT OF THE CONVENTION ESTABLISHING A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

FIRST PRELIMINARY DRAFT OF THE IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS and

FIRST PRELIMINARY DRAFT OF THE RULES RELATING TO FEES

- Stage reached on 26 November 1971 -

BR/139 e/71

Page 21

of them) should adopt a scheme on the basis of which the various Boards of Appeal would be composed.

The Implementing Regulations will also have to lay down provisions governing the division of responsibilities between the various Boards of Appeal.

Articles 66 to 75

Applications for European patents - Filing and requirements of the application - Priority (Report by the Netherlands delegation : BR/19/69) 25. The question was raised à propos of Article 72 whether the European patent application constituted an application under Article 4A (2) of the Paris Convention. 26. In the view of the representative of BIRPI, the provisions of Article 72 (6), which deal with reciprocity, together with Article 75, should lead to the consequence that all members of the Paris Convention should recognize the European patent application as a national application for priority purposes. There was however no uniform method of

Articles 54 to 65

Departments - Register, publications, classification Relations with national authorities (Report by the Swiss delegation : BR / 18 / 69 ) 22. The Conference adopted the system proposed by Working Party I, which divides examination of the application between an Examinine Section and an Examining Division and lays down that Examining Divisions should be cceposed of three examiners, at least during the "running in" period of the European Patent Office (EPO).

The Conference also agreed that it would be advisable to provide in the final provisions that, should it prove necessary, this system may be amended later by a more flexible methoc than that of revision of the Convention. 23. On the subject of Articles 58 and 58 a (Boards of Appeal and Enlarged Board of Appeal), the Conference observed that although it was not formally stated that the President of the EPO might not be a member of either of these Boards, the Administrative Council would refrain from appointing him to memberchip of either body. 24. As regards the appointment of the meabers of the individual Boards of Appeal, the Conference agreed that this matter would have to be dealt with in the Implementing Regulations, which might, for example, lay down that all the members of the Boards of Appeal (or a limited number

Page 23

INTER-GOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE FOR THE SETTING UP OF A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

Brussels, 30 January 1970 BR / 26 / 70

- Secretariat -

MINUTES

of the 2nd MEETING held at Luxembourg on 13 to 16 January 1970

OPENING OF THE MEETING

1. The Conference began its work at 10.00 a.m. on Tuesday 13 January at the Kirchberg European Centre, Luxembourg, with Dr. HAERTEL, President of the German Patent Office, in the Chair (2).

ADOPTION OF THE PROVISIONAL AGENDA

2. The Conference adopted the provisional agenda submitted by the President. (1) The agenda is given in Annex I (2) The list of those attending the 2nd meeting is given in Annex II. BR / 26 e/70 kel/PA/mk

Page 24

Article 58a (new) Enlarged Board of Appeal

Working Party text (1) The Enlarged Board of Appeal shall be responsible for : (a) deciding points of law referred to it by Boards of Appeal and (b) giving opinions on points of law referred to it by the President of the European Patent Office. (2) The Enlarged Board of Appeal shall consist of seven members, of whom five shall be legally qualified members and two technically qualified members.

Page 25

INTER-GOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE FOR THE SETTING UP OF A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

Brussels, 7 November 1969 BR / 9 / 69

- Secretariat -

PRELIMINARY DRAFT CONVENTION FOR A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

Articles 54 to 96 prepared by Working Party I (14 October to 17 October 1969) compared synoptically with

- the 1962 and 1965 versions of the Draft Convention as established by the F'G" "Patents" Working Party and - the Draft of an open European Patent Convention drawn up by the Member States of the European Free Trade Association

Page 26

the yorking Farty believed it necessary to provide for an Enlarged Board of Appeal which can be referred to by a Board of Appeal where the latter is faced with an important point of law, in particular where it intends to depart from the decision of another Board of Appeal.

The majority of the Working Party considered that the President of the European Patent Office should be able to ask the Enlarged Board of Appeal for an opinion on such questions. Reference was made to the existing practice in France whereby the Conseil d'Etat may give the Government an opinion when requested to do so. The Section of the Conseil d'Etat which gives its opinion is in all cases distinct from the Section which will have to decide in any dispute. 18. It was agreed that the Enlarged Board of Appeal would not be a permanent body, but would only meet when questions such as those referred to in point 17 were submitted to it. It would normally be composed of members of the Boards of Appeal (the presidents of the latter, for example).

The Working Party decided that the details of the competence of the Enlarged Board of Appeal should be laid down in a new Article 112a (new), which will be examined at a later date (1).

In addition, it was agreed that the Implementing Regulations would lay down if and under what conditions the Enlarged Board of Appeal is to hear the parties. (1) A draft text prepared by the French and Dutch delegations is to be submitted to the Working Party.

Page 27

Article 57 - Patent Administration Divisions 14. The Working Party was of the opinion that there was no justification for Patent Administration Divisions in the present Convention, since the aim of the latter was simply to set up a system for the grant of patents. Depending on the stage reached in the procedure, either the Examining Sections or the Examining Divisions would be competent to deal with any administrative questions arising in connection with applications (such as payment of fees). Where necessary, these bodies will be able to seek the advice of another member of the European Patent Office, if they are of the opinion that the matter to be settled requires specialized knowledge (legal knowledge in particular).

Article 58 - Boards of Appeal 15. The majority of the Working Party was in favour of a text which, basically following the 2nd variant in the 1965 Draft, provides that the Boards of Appeal are to be composed of an odd number of members. 16. In addition, the Working Party thought it necessary to ensure that where a Board of Appeal is required to give a decision on appeal from a decision of an Examining Division composed of four members, it must itself be composed of five members.

Article 58a (new) - Enlarged Board of Appeal 17. To ensure the uniform application of the law while at the same time avoiding the setting up of a further legal instance,

Page 28

INTER-GOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE FOR THE SETTING UP OF A EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE GRANT OF PATENTS

Brussels, 12 November 1969 BR / 10 / 69

- Secretariat -

M I N U T E S

of the meeting of Working Party I (Luxembourg, 14 - 17 October 1969)

I 1. The second working meeting of Working Party I was held at Luxembourg from Tuesday 14 to Friday 17 October 1969, with Dr. HAERTEL, President of the German Patent Office, in the Chair.

The Commission of the European Communities, BIRPI, the General Secretariat of the Council of Europe and the International Patent Institute took part in the meeting (1). 2. The Working Party agreed to appoint the following as rapporteurs :

- a member of the Swiss delegation for Articles 54 to 65 (organisation of the departments - register, publications, classification - relations with national authorities) ; (1) See Annex I for list of participants in the meeting of the Working Party.

BR/10 e/69 kel/PA/mk

Article 58 (Suite)

membre technicien rapporteur qui ne participe pas à la décision et, si elles le jugent utile en raison d'une question juridique difficile ou importante, de trois membres techniciens dont le rapporteur et de deux membres juristes. Dans les autres cas, les chambres se composent de trois membres juristes. (3) ^+Les membres des chambres de recours ne peuvent être membres des section d'examen, des divisions d'examen, ni des divisions d'administration des brevets. (4) ^+Dans leurs décisions les membres des chambres de recours ne sont liés par aucune instruction. Ils ne doivent se conformer qu'aux dispositions de la présente convention et à celles arrêtées en vue de son application.

Remarque :

En ce qui concerne la première variante du paragraphe 2 de cet article, le groupe de travail estime que, dans le cas où les chambres de recours se composent de quatre membres, le président doit être un membre technicien.

Page 30

Article 58

Chambres ce recours (1) ^+Les chambres de recours sont compétentes pour statuer sur les recours exercés contre ler décisions des sections d'examen, des divisions d'examen et des divisions d'administratiou des brevets. (2) lère variante :

Pour statuer, les chambres de recours se composent de trois, quatre ou cinq membres. Lorsqu'elles statuent sur les recours exercés contre une décision de rejet d'une demande de brevet européen ou une décision relative à la division, à la confirmation ou à l'innulation d'un brevet europcén provisoire, les chambres de recours se composent de trois membres techniciens et d'un membre juriste et, si elles le jugent utile en raison d'une question juridique difficile ou importante, de trois membres techniciens et de ceux membres juristes. Dans les autres cas, elles se composent de trois membres juristes. Si une chambre est composée de quatre membres et qu'il y ait partage des voix, la voix du président est prépondé-rants.

2ème variante :

Pour statuer, les chambres de recours se composent de trois ou cinq membres. Lorsqu'elles statuent sur les recours exercés contre une décision de rejet d'une demande de brevet européen ou une décision relative à la division, à la confirmation ou à l'ennulation d'un brevet provisoire, les chambres de recours se composent de deux membres techniciens et d'un membre juriste assistés d'un

V E 1965

OROUTE DE TRAVAIL " Brevets "

Bruxelles, le 22 Janvier 1965 2.335/IV/65-F

Confidentiel

Modifications de l'avant-projet de Convention relatif a un éroit européen des brevets (articls 1 a 175)

Ce document remplace le document 11.155/IV/64-F du 2 octobre 1964 (articles 1 & 103)

Page 32

Unterstuetzung eines technisch vorgebildeten Mitglieds als Berichterstatter, das nicht an der Entscheidung teilnimmt, und, falls sie es mit Ruecksicht auf eine schwierige oder bedeutsame Rechtsfrage fuer zweckmaessig halten, in der Besetzung mit drei. technisch vorgebildeten Mitgliedern einschliesslich des Berichterstatters und zwei rechtskundigen Mitgliedern. Im uebrigen entscheiden die Beschwerdekammern in der Besetzung mit drei rechtskundigen Mitgliedern. (3) ^+Die Mitglieder der Beschwerdekammern duerfen nicht den Pruefungsstellen, Pruefungsabteilungen oder Patentverwaltungsabteilungen angehoeren. (4) Die Mitglieder der Beschwerdekammern sind fuer ihre Entscheidungen an Weisungen nicht gebunden. Sie sind nur den Vorschriften dieses Abkommens und den zu seiner Ausfuehrung erlassenen Vorschriften unterworfen.

Bemerkung:

Hinsichtlich der 1. Fassung des Absatzes 2 ist die Arbeitsgruppe der Auffassung, dass bei einer Besetzung der Beschwerdekammer mit vier Mitgliedern der Vorsitzende ein technisches Mitglied sein muss.

Page 33

Artikel 58

Beschwerdekammern (1) ^+Die Beschwerdekammern sind fuer die Entscheidung ueber Be-. schwerden gegen die Entscheidungen der Pruefungsstellen, Pruefungsabteilungen und Patentverwaltungsabteilungen zustaendig.

(2) Erste Fassung:

Fuer die Entscheidung setzen sich die Beschwerdekammern aus drei, vier oder fuenf Mitgliedern zusammen. Bei Beschwerden gegen eine. Entscheidung ueber die Zurueckweisung einer europaeischen Patentanmeldung oder eine Entscheidung ueber die Teilung, die Bestaetigung oder die Aufhebung eines vorlaeufigen europaeischen Patents entscheiden die Beschwerdekammern in dor Besetzung mit drei technisch vorgebildeten Mitgliedern und einem rechtskundigen Mitglied und, falls sie es mit Ruecksicht auf eine schwierige oder bedeutsame Rechtsfrage fuer zweckmaessig halten, in der Besetzung mit drei. technisch vorgebildeten Mitgliedern und zwei rechtskundigen Mitgliedern. Im uebrigen entscheiden sie in der Besetzung mit drei rechtskundigen Mitgliedern. Ist eine Beschwerdekammer mit vier Mitgliedern besetzt, so gibt bei Stimmengleichheit die Stimme des Vorsitzenden den Ausschlag.

Zweite Fassung:

Fuer die Entscheidung setzen sich die Beschwerdekammern aus drei oder fuenf Mitgliedern zusammen. Bei Beschwerden gegen eine Ents scheidung ueber die Zurueckweisung einer europaeischen Patentanmeldung oder eine Entscheidung ueber die Teilung, die Bestaetigung oder die Aufhebung eines vorlaeufigen europaeischen Patents entscheiden die Beschwerdekammern in der Besetzung mit zwei technisch vorgebildeten Mitgliedern und einem rechtskundigen Mitglied mit

Page 34

Arbeitsgruppe "Patente"

Brüssel, den 22. Januar 1965 2335/IV/65-D

Vertraulich

Inderungen des Vorentwurfs eines Abkommens über ein europäisches Patentrecht

(Artikel 1 bis 175)

Dieses Arbeitsdokument ersetzt das Arbeitsdokument 11.155/IV/64-D vom 2. Oktober 1964 (Artikel 1 bis 103).

VE 1965 VE 1962 unter Berücksichtigung der im Arbeitsdokument 2335/IV/65 der EWG-Arbeitsgruppe "Patente" vom 22. Jan. 1965 enthaltenen Knderungen unveröffentlicht

Page 35

Article 20 22

Enlarged Board of Appeal

(1) The Enlarged Board of Appeal shall be responsible for:

(a) deciding points of law referred to it by Boards of Appeal 2

(b) giving opinions on points of law referred to it by the President of the European Patent Office under the conditions laid down in Article 112.

(2) For giving decisions or opinions, the Enlarged Board of Appeal shall consist of five legally qualified members and two technically qualified members. One of the legally qualified members shall be the Chairman.